HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/02/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
February 27, 2006
6:30 p.m.
6:00 PM Board & Commission Interviews – Boxed Lunch
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 6:30 PM Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration Study
2. 7:00 PM Police Advisory Commission Annual Report
3. 7:45 PM Park Nicollet Eating Disorder Institute
4. 8:30 PM Zoning Ordinance Amendments
5. 9:15 PM 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Reallocation
6. 9:30 PM Alternate Sources of Energy for City Buildings
7. 9:45 PM Future Study Session Agenda Planning
10:00 PM Adjourn
Written Reports for Council Review
8. January 2006 Financial Statements
9. Acquisition of Property – Redevelopment of Golden Auto Site
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518)
at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 1 - Sanitary Sewer I & I Study
Page 1
1. Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration Study Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To present information on Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration, including background materials,
recent Met Council requirements/mandates, the SLP study currently underway, and possible
property owner implications and education. In other words, what will all of this mean for the
Council/City and our residents in the coming months?
BACKGROUND:
The attached Metropolitan Council Fact Sheet provides basic information on Sanitary Sewer Inflow
and Infiltration (I&I) – what it is and where it comes from. In addition, the Fact Sheet describes the
problems associated with I&I along with proposed solutions (requirements/mandates).
Based on the Met Council I&I study and requirements, SEH, Inc. was retained in August of 2005 to
review/assess our situation and advise on how we might proceed in this matter. Their initial review
determined we should collect groundwater and flow monitoring data to further define the extent and
locations of our I&I problem. The initial contract with SEH, Inc. was extended during January of
2006 to provide for this additional data collection effort. It will not be known if further studies will
be needed until the results of this current effort are finalized. This will probably not be until mid-
2006 or later.
As described in the attached Fact Sheet, I&I may be originating from private property connections.
If so, further study, along with property owner involvement, will be necessary to determine what
problems exist and what may need to be done to correct them. If that is necessary, a significant
public education effort may be required.
NEXT STEPS:
The following general actions have been identified to respond to the Met Council I&I Program:
1. Assess the I&I problem in our city (currently underway)
2. Public Education/Involvement (March – December 2006)
3. Develop an I&I abatement plan (September 2006)
4. Adopt/Implement an I&I abatement plan (December 2006)
QUESTIONS:
1. Do we have any idea how big an I&I problem we might have?
2. How much could this cost? How will we pay for this?
3. What kind of property owner involvement will there be?
4. What will residents have to pay for mitigating I&I impacts?
Supplement(s): Metropolitan Council Fact Sheet
Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 2 - PAC Annual Report
Page 1
2. Police Advisory Commission Annual Report Police Department
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The Police Advisory Commission (PAC) will meet with the City Council at the February
27, 2006, study session to conduct the business of annual reporting. Commission
members attending anticipate the following topics of discussion with the Council:
• Review 2005 activities and experiences
• Outline plans for 2006
• Receive direction from Council
• Answer questions from Council
The attached 2005 Annual Report from the PAC will assist the Council in preparing for
the above discussion topics and any related areas of interest to the Council.
Attachments: 2005 PAC Annual Report
Prepared By: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 2 - PAC Annual Report
Page 2
St Louis Park
Police Advisory Commission
Year-end Report, 2005
2005 Commissioners and Officers:
Kim Aune Maureen Gormley, Vice Chair
Molly Altorfer Shayne Karasov, Secretary
Michael Baum, Chair Jim Lanenburg
Sharon Berry Cal Ohliger
Karen Bream
In this past year, the Police Advisory Commission continued the momentum begun in the
previous by focusing on the following priorities:
Integrating the Police Department and the City’s focus on Children First
Developing community partnerships between businesses/community and the
Police Department
Assisting the Police with the development of a survey of the professional conduct
of officers with interaction with the community
Educating the community about the PD by establishing an “academy” where
citizens can learn about and experience some of the training and realities police
officers experience in their work.
Mustering City resources to proactively communicate the successes of the PD.
The Commission conducted its work on the above priorities through the following sub-
committees:
Children First
Sub-Committee Members: Cal Ohliger and Kim Aune, Chair
Children First Committee members met with Karen Atkinson, Children First Coordinator.
From this meeting, assets involving the safety of children in our community and more
police involvement in schools were identified as areas of focus. The lack of a police
liaison officer at the Junior High was discussed as an opportunity for improvement.
The need for a D.A.R.E. officer at St. Louis Park Junior High School was brought to the
Police Advisory Commission. The Children First Sub committee met three times during
the summer of 2005 with the Community Partnerships sub-committee establishing a
process for applying for grant money to fund a DARE Officer at the Junior High. A time
line for action was presented to the Police Advisory Commission.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 2 - PAC Annual Report
Page 3
Community Partnerships
Sub-Committee Members: Molly Altofer, Cal Ohliger, Kim Aune and Shayne Karasov,
Chair
With the need identified by the PD and the Junior High for a D.A.R.E. officer assigned
full-time to the Junior High, the Commission directed this sub-committee to research
sources of funding and to solicit those sources for donations of money to fund the
D.A.R.E. officer position. In addition, Les Bork, Principal of the Junior High was invited
to and did speak with the full Commission on the subject.
The sub-committee identified likely sources of funding in three categories:
Corporate Foundations
Sources of grant money available from government and/or private foundations
Local organizations and businesses
A plan and timeline was established and approved by the Commission for applying for
funds and speaking with local organizations. Late this year, the School District agreed to
fund their half of the position and so the efforts of the sub-committee will be re-directed
in the coming year.
Citizens Police Academy Subcommittee
Sub-committee Members: Officer Troy Peek and Maureen Gormley, Chair; Jim
Lanenberg, Cal Ohliger
In late 2004, the Citizens Police Academy Subcommittee was formed to explore starting
a “police academy” to educate the public about what is involved with being a police
officer for the City of St. Louis Park. The curriculum was developed and the
subcommittee recommended the first academy be open only to Police Advisory
Commission Members and Block Captains. This group would serve as a critical test
group to tweak the program before opening it up to the public at large.
The course was twelve weeks in duration – 6 weeks offered in the spring and the final 6
weeks offered in the fall. The reaction to the course was overwhelmingly positive.
Feedback was provided in the way of written evaluations each week. The last class was
spent going through a week by week recap with Chief Luse. The evaluations and the
notes from that meeting will be used by the subcommittee and Officer Peek to make any
necessary improvements to the course so that it will be ready to be offered to the public
in the spring of 2006.
Survey Committee
Members: Shayne Karasov and Sharon Berry, Chair
In 2004, a Professional Conduct Survey was developed after researching surveys from
other Departments and interviewing officers of our City’s Department. Once developed,
the survey was submitted to the Police Department senior leadership for input and
approval.
In 2005, the survey was approved by the board, following recommended changes
(wording/style) by both the PAC and police department staff, including liaison officer,
Sergeant Greg Weigel. It was then to be reviewed by City Council and City Manager.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 2 - PAC Annual Report
Page 4
The plan was to complete a pilot study with 50 surveys distributed to determine response
rate and fine-tune the survey.
Late in the year, the survey methodology developed the previous year was called in to
question after the publishing of the results of a research study on the effectiveness of the
kinds of survey methodologies the PAC sub-committee recommended. The sub-
committee met and has recommended piloting the current survey and methodologies to
validate the effectiveness of the instrument. The sub-committee along with the
Department plan to launch the pilot in Spring, 2006.
Public Relations Sub-Committee
Committee Members: Shayne Karasov, Lynn Schwartz, Reg Dunlap and Michael Baum,
Chair
In 2005, this sub-committee influenced the following media to either publish articles
and/or broadcast programs with the City’s Police Department as the focus:
3 of 4 issues of this year’s Park Perspectives carried articles about the
accomplishments or events sponsored by our Police Department.
2 Programs ran on Channel 17 with the PD as the focus.
2006 Officers
Michael Baum, Chair
Maureen Gormley, Vice Chair
In the coming year, the Commission will sharpen its focus by consolidating some of the
previous year’s agenda items where appropriate. The Commission will continue the
work begun in the previous year and initiate new work through the following sub-
committees:
Community Partnerships: This sub-committee will create a plan raising funds for
worthwhile PD sponsored activities and reach out to specific communities in St Louis
Park to foster better understanding of the community by the PD and the PD by the
specific community. The Commission’s priority to Children First will be most manifest
in the work of this sub-committee.
Citizen’s Academy: This sub-committee will focus on launching the academy to the
public, with the first classes beginning in Spring, 2006. Maureen Gormley, Chair.
Traffic: This new sub-committee is tasked with working with the PD and the community
to highlight traffic issues that need to be addressed and to bring the voice of the citizenry
to solving the thorny issue of how best should the police address traffic issues. Karen
Bream, Chair.
Public Relations: This sub-committee will continue to work to publicize the successes of
the PD. In addition, this sub-committee will work with the City and PD on the
development of the PD of a more utilitarian and useful PD web site as part of the City’s
web site. The work on the professional conduct survey will now be overseen by this
committee. Sharon Berry, Chair.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 3 - Park Nicollet EDI
Page 1
3. Park Nicollet Eating Disorder Institute Community Development
Purpose of Discussion:
The purpose of this discussion is to review with Council potential locations for a new facility for
the Park Nicollet Eating Disorders Institute (EDI). Ten possible sites have been identified by
Park Nicollet; seven of them are in St. Louis Park. Representatives of Park Nicollet, EDI and
United Properties (who is working with PNC to identify possible sites) will be in attendance at
the study session to present the potential sites. Park Nicollet and United Properties will also
share their evaluation of each site.
The City Council discussed this topic previously at the December 12, 2005 study session. The
consensus from that meeting was that a new state of the art EDI would be a good asset for the
community and that we should continue working with Park Nicollet on this project. If we are to
continue, a workable site will need to be identified within St. Louis Park as the home for the new
EDI. Due to funding reasons, Park Nicollet has indicated they need to have a site identified by at
least the end of the first quarter of 2006.
Background:
EDI is a nationally recognized program currently located at Methodist Hospital. The program is
growing and needs more space than is available at the hospital. PNHS would like to build
approximately a 60,000 sq.ft. building on a site that offers more prominence then they currently
have at Methodist Hospital. The intent is to create a world class facility.
PNHS is actively fund raising for construction of a new EDI facility. They would like to locate in
St. Louis Park in close proximity to either Park Nicollet Clinic or Methodist Hospital. They have
been searching for potential sites including several sites in St. Louis Park for six years. A key
reason for discussing this topic now is PNHS’s need to identify a site by the end of the first
quarter of 2006. Identifying a site is a critical next step in their fund raising effort. They have
major donors identified and eager to move forward if a site can be found.
Next Steps:
If the City and Park Nicollet can agree on a site in St. Louis Park, staff would work with Park
Nicollet on the actions needed to implement the project.
Prepared By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 1
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To discuss proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments relate to
residential setbacks, detached garages, accessory buildings, lot divisions, and to allow studios in
the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district
Background:
An outcome of the Housing Summit process included the idea of encouraging the expansion of
existing single family homes. Over the past several months, the Planning Commission and City
Council have met to discuss zoning ordinance changes that will clarify, simplify and provide
more ease to citizens in remodeling and expanding homes.
Process:
Proposed Zoning Code updates were discussed at a Study Session on July 11, 2005 and
continued at the September 26, 2005 Study Session. Some Planning Commissioners attended
these sessions. Staff prepared specific ordinance language based on the direction given, and the
Planning Commission continued the discussion of the proposed changes at subsequent meetings.
A public hearing for the proposed changes was held on January 4, 2006. The Commission met
again January 18, 2006 to discuss an alternate proposal amending residential front yard setbacks.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of all the proposed amendments.
Staff is working on numerous other changes to the ordinance in order to make it more workable
and understandable. Some of the changes will relate to substantive issues, however most relate
to the organization of the Code and to the language used. Some of the language in the ordinance
is very difficult to interpret, and portions of the ordinance are disjointed. Over the next year or
so we will bring forth recommended changes for further discussion.
Description of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Attached are several changes related to improving the ordinance. The changes address setbacks,
detached garages, accessory buildings, lot divisions, and allowing studios as an allowed use in
the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. In working through the Ordinance, the Staff is also
proposing changes to amend and clarify language in several places.
The following changes relate to single family homes:
1. Amending residential setback issues.
2. Changes to placement of accessory structures.
3. Allowing lot divisions under specific circumstances.
The following changes are additional changes the Staff recommends:
4. Deleting Table 115a, which is a summary of land uses by zoning district.
5. Adding “studio” as a use in the IP district.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 2
SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
1. Amending Residential Standards
The intent of the amendments is to provide some regulatory changes to the code, which are
summarized below.
a. Front Yard Setbacks
The front yard is currently determined by taking five feet less than the average front yard of
all properties within 150 feet of the subject property. This has been problematic for residents
and staff. Staff explored options to improve the rules for determining the front yard setbacks
in residence districts. The current code is ambiguous, requires residents to survey
neighboring properties, and each addition to a front of a building may reduce the required
setback and allow homes to shift closer to the street.
One of the goals identified from the Housing Summit was to encourage house additions. The
Planning Commission and City Council have also expressed a possible competing goal of
maintaining the view or character of the streetscape on blocks where existing houses are built
further back than the required minimum setback (in other word preserve larger front yards).
Staff identified five different scenarios for determining the front yard setback. There are pros
and cons to each approach. The table below provides a brief summary and staff’s analysis of
each scenario.
# RULE DESCRIPTION Pros & Cons
A
(Current Code) Average Setback.
Five feet less than the average front
yard setback of all properties within 150
feet of the subject property.
+ Setback tailored for each property
− Complicated to explain and determine
− Include subject property in calculation? Before
or after project?
− Must survey neighboring properties
− Required setback changes over time
− House may get closer to the street over time
− Existing houses built closer to the street than
“five feet less than the average setback” have
nonconforming front yard setbacks
B Average Setback. Five feet less than
the average front yard setback of the
houses on either side of the subject
property.
+ Setback tailored for each property
+ Fewer lots to survey than Option #1
+ Excludes subject property
− Complicated to explain and determine
− Must survey neighboring properties
− Moving target
− Setback may shrink over time
− Existing houses built closer to the street than
“five feet less than the average setback” have
nonconforming front yard setbacks
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 3
C Fixed Setback, With Specific
Street Exceptions. Fixed, district-wide
setback; but identify and list individual
blocks with large front yards and
require a larger, fixed setback for each
of those blocks.
+ Setback tailored for each block
+ Less complicated
+ Fixed setback
+ Won’t shift over time
+ No survey of neighboring lots
− Difficult and time consuming to identify and
establish a comprehensive list of blocks that
warrant exceptions (see exhibits)
− Draft list is already too long to be practical
D Fixed Setback, With Exception.
Fixed, district-wide setback or the
closest house (smallest front yard) on
the block, whichever is greater.
+ Setback tailored for each block
+ Less complicated
+ Fixed setback
+ Won’t shift over time
+ Must survey only one additional lot
+ More intuitive requirement
+ Creates no nonconformities
+ No need for City to develop and establish a
comprehensive list
− One outlier (very small front yard) on a block
may set standard for whole block, not less than
the base setback
E Fixed Setback, No Exceptions. Fixed,
district-wide setback.
+ Consistent requirement district-wide
+ Least complicated
+ Fixed setback
+ Won’t shift over time
+ No survey of neighboring lots
+ No limit on one property based on decisions of
neighboring owners
+ No lists, no exceptions
− Less flexible
− No protection of blocks with large front yard
setbacks
Currently the code allows houses to be built five feet closer to the street than the average
setback which is explicit in Options #A and #B, and incorporated into Option #C. The intent
of this rule was/is to allow existing houses to add a modest, enclosed front entryway to a
house.
Staff recommends Options #D (Fixed Setback, With Exception). This approach is
relatively clear, simple and intuitive; and creates no new nonconforming front yard setbacks.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Option #C (Fixed Setback, With
Exceptions), however, the list of properties became unmanageable. Staff determined that
Option #D (Fixed Setback with Exception) could accomplish the same objectives, with a
simpler method of doing so.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 4
b. The “side yard abutting a street” standards would be consistent throughout the R-1, R-2
and R-3 Residential Districts. They would require a 9 foot minimum side yard for those
properties less than 60 feet wide, and a 15 foot side yard for those lots that are 60 feet or
more in width.
c. The maximum ground floor area in R-1, R-2 and R-3 would be increased slightly from
30% to 35%, in order to allow more expansion of single family homes.
d. The area required when a back yard abuts a front yard would have a maximum size of 30’
x 30’ in the R-1 District and 25’ x 25’ in the R-2 and R-3 Districts. This would free up
some space in the corner lot for expansion.
e. The requirement to have at least 10 feet between homes is proposed to be removed. An
exception currently exists for homes with legal, nonconforming side yards. However, the
exception is not available to those properties that do not have at least 10 feet between the
house and the neighboring home. The 10-foot rule is not required by the building or fire
codes; therefore, staff proposes to remove this restriction to allow house additions that
maintain the existing side yard setback.
f. In the R-3 Residential District the side yard requirements are proposed to be amended to
create a reduced setback for single family homes to be consistent with the R-2 Residential
District (7 feet on one side, 5 on the other).
2. Accessory Building Regulations – PROPOSED LANGUAGE ATTACHED
The intent of the amendment is to clarify and condense the regulations into a format that is easier
to read and use. In summary, the proposed amendments will result in the following changes:
a. Under the proposed changes, detached garages would not be treated differently from
other detached accessory buildings. Currently accessory buildings have a 3 foot side and
rear yard, while detached garages have a 2 foot side and rear yard. This means, for
example, a 10’ x 10’ storage shed has a greater setback requirement than a 26’ by 26’
detached garage. The proposed amendments establish a 2 foot side and rear yard for all
accessory buildings, regardless of use or size.
b. It is also proposed that there be a 5 foot setback from the alley for detached garages when
the garage door faces an alley. This additional setback is to allow for turning movements
into the garage.
c. It is proposed to add an exception to allow a detached garage of up to 576 square feet
(24’ x 24’) even if it exceeds the maximum 25% back yard coverage allowed for
accessory buildings. This would allow more homes to have a 2-car garage, without
additional accessory buildings.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 5
d. It is proposed to remove the option to have a garage that is larger than 800 square feet
with a conditional use permit. Three-car garages could be built within this square
footage.
e. The maximum height allowed for accessory buildings would continue to be 15 feet to
peak, however, an exception would be added to go up to 24 feet to the roof peak with the
conditions that the exterior materials on the garage match with those of the house, and
that the roof pitch matches the roof pitch of the house. The side wall would be limited to
9 feet in height in order to prevent a two story garage with a 4/12 roof pitch.
f. The proposed amendments would remove the minimum allowed roof pitch so a flat roof
could be constructed with second story windows that look either to the right-of-way or
the backyard.
g. Windows would be allowed in the second story of an accessory building if the openings
face a public right-of-way or are at least 15 feet from a property line shared in common
with another residential property. This would allow a home owner to construct an
accessory building that is compatible with the home in architecture and design.
h. The proposed language clarifies that accessory buildings cannot be used for dwelling
purposes, but allows them to be used for other purposes such as storage and hobby
spaces. The home occupation provision of the residential districts will continue to
prohibit the use of accessory buildings as part of the home occupation.
Allowing Lot Divisions – PROPOSED LANGUAGE ATTACHED
The City has had requests to split lots to allow two single family homes on parcels that have been
combined into one lot. In previous discussions to allow lots to be split in the case where two
platted lots exist as one parcel or have been combined for tax purposes, the Council direction
was to the allow the division with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if the remaining lots are the
same size and width as the existing lots in the surrounding neighborhood and are compatible to
the neighborhood.
With a CUP, the conditions would be as follows:
• Lots must be existing platted lots that were in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance at the
time of platting;
• Lots must meet the 2/3rds provision of this ordinance (40 feet wide in R-2, 50 feet in R-1)
• Each lot has the same lot size and width as the existing, surrounding neighborhood;
• Each single family home meets the following design criteria:
o Each dwelling must include at least three bedrooms and two baths.
o Architectural styles, including rooflines shall be compatible with existing homes in the
neighborhood, as determined by roof type and pitch. Two story homes on a block of one
story homes are allowed if they exhibit compatible style and finishes.
o Garages. Each dwelling must have a two-car detached or attached garage. If there is an
alley, it must be used for garage access. If there is not an alley, garages shall be placed at
least 5 feet behind the main front building wall of the home. No carports are allowed.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 6
The following changes are additional changes the Staff recommends:
Deleting Table 36-115-a
Table 36-115a is intended to provide a simple summary list of land uses by zoning districts.
However, the table is not accurate and is repetitious. For purposes of accuracy and clarity the
table should be removed. Removing the table reduces the possibility of error in the Zoning Code
by listing land uses in only one location within the Code, rather than in multiple locations.
Adding ‘Studios’ as a Permitted Use in the IP – Industrial Park District
Studios are currently a permitted use in the C-2, O, and I-G Zoning Districts. Studios are
permitted with conditions in the C-1 Zoning District. There does not appear to be any reason
why studios have been included in the less restrictive I-G district but excluded from the more
restrictive I-P district, as the I-P district is typically a less-intense use district than the I-G
district.
Studios, as described by Section 36-142 “Land Use Descriptions and Characteristics,” include
facilities where the practice or study of visual and audio art occurs, including painting,
sculpturing, photography, recording, radio, and television studios; and also including dance and
martial arts studios. The use does not include large industrial photography or printing processes.
Recommended Action:
Discuss proposed ordinance changes and provide direction to Staff.
Attachments: Proposed Zoning Language for Accessory Buildings and Lot Divisions
Map and List relating to Option #C for Front Yard Setbacks
Prepared By: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Planning Staff
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 7
PROPOSED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
(d7) Accessory structures. Accessory structures shall comply with the following regulations:
a1. Accessory buildings shall be erected or located within the back yard as defined in
subsection (b) above, except that an detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage and
meeting the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 below, may be located within a side yard unless it abuts a
street. No accessory building shall be located in the front yard as defined in subsection (b) above.
b2. A detached garage Accessory buildings located 60 feet or more from the front lot line
within the back yard shall meet the following locational provisions:
1i. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 15 feet in height and/or
26 feet in length or width shall be located a minimum of two feet from any lot
lines.
ii. Garages where the building dimensions exceed 15 feet in height and/or
26 feet in length or width shall be located the following minimum
distances from any lot lines:
District Min. Interior Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. to Alley
R-1 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-2 7 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-3 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
iii. Garages on alleys shall be located and designed to maintain adequate
visibility and vehicle turning movements.
2iv. Eaves, overhangs, gutters or other extensions from the roof of the structure shall
be located a minimum of 16 inches from any property line abutting a right-of-way
and two feet from all other property lines.
c3. Accessory buildings on through lots shall be subject to the front and side yard
requirements of the principal building if the accessory building is located within 60
feet of the rear lot line. No accessory building, including a detached garage, shall be
located within a side or rear yard abutting a street.
4. No accessory building other than a detached garage meeting
the requirements of subsection 2 above shall be located within three feet of any lot
line.
d5. All accessory buildings and structures shall be located to comply with the principal
building yard requirements Detached garages when located in the side yard must
conform to the side yard requirements of the principal building unless exempt by this
section or section 36-73.
e6. No accessory building or permanent structure shall be located in a drainage or utility
easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 8
(2)b. Size--
a1. Accessory buildings on single-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts and on
non-conforming two-family lots:
i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings on
single-family lots and on non-conforming two-family lots in the R-1, R-2
and R-3 Districts (detached garages, storage sheds and other
accessory buildings) shall not exceed the smaller of 800 square feet or
25 percent of the back yard area between the principal structure and
rear lot line. This provision shall not prohibit the construction of a
detached garage that is no greater than 576 square feet in area
provided there are no other accessory buildings.
ii. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall
not exceed 800 square feet, unless approved as a conditional use.
b2. Accessory buildings on conforming two-family lots in the R-3 or R-4 District:
1i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed
25 percent of the area between the principal structure and rear lot line.
2ii. No single accessory building may exceed 800 square feet in total area and the
cumulative area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,200 square feet
unless approved as a conditional use.
c3. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall be smaller
than the ground floor area of the principal building on the lot.
(3)c. Height--
a1. Detached garages Accessory buildings - Shall not exceed 15 feet or 22 feet in height.
The maximum height may be increased to twenty four feet where the primary exterior
materials of the accessory building match the primary exterior materials of the
principal building and the roof pitch matches the primary roof pitch of the principal
building, and provided the wall height shall not exceed 9 feet from the floor to the top
plate. as measured in accordance with section 36-4 depending upon the location as
specified in section 36-162(c)7.a above.
b2. Parking ramps--Height is regulated by sections 36-166 and 36-167.
c3. Other Aaccessory buildings and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height as
measured in accordance with section 36-4 unless exempt by section 36-78.
d4. The height of all accessory buildings and structures shall be lower than the highest
roof line point of the principal building unless exempt by section 36-78.
(4)d. Design--
a1. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall be compatible in design
and materials to the principal building on the parcel.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 9
2. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall have a minimum 3/12
pitch on any roof section, unless approved as a conditional use.
b3. No plumbing for kitchen or bathroom facilities (including but not limited to toilets and
showers) is allowed in any detached garage or other accessory building. Hose bibs
and utility sinks are allowed.
c4. Floor drains in garages and other accessory buildings must be connected to sanitary
sewer as approved by the city.
d5. No part of any Wwindows, doors, skylight or and similar openings shall may be
located in the second story of an accessory building if the wall or dormer in which it is
located faces a lot line that abuts a public right-of-way or is at least 15 feet from any
property that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.
detached garage unless approved as a conditional use.
e6. Accessory buildings shall not be used for dwelling purposes. Second stories of
detached garages may only be used for storage, unless another use is approved as a
conditional use.
(5)e. Accessory buildings as part of the principal buildings--Accessory buildings
located less than six feet from a principal building on the same lot shall be considered part
of the principal building for the purpose of applying provisions of this chapter.
(6)f. Garages below grade level--Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a
house is eight feet or more above the established curb level, a private garage may be
erected within any yard provided one-half or more of its height is below grade level and it
is located a minimum of ten feet from any street line and five feet from any side lot line.
(7)g. Permit required--All accessory buildings (including storage buildings 120 square feet or less in
area) shall obtain a zoning or building permit prior to installation and must be anchored in a manner
approved by the city.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE: LOT DIVISIONS
Single family lots that have been combined into one parcel or one tax identification number may only be
considered separate lots if they meet the 2/3rds provision of this ordinance and a Conditional Use Permit
with the following conditions:
a. Each is a previously platted lots that was in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance at the
time of platting;
b. Each lot has the same lot size and width as the existing, surrounding neighborhood;
c. Each single family home meets the following design criteria:
i. Each dwelling must include at least three bedrooms and two baths.
ii. Architectural styles, including rooflines shall be compatible with existing homes in
the neighborhood, as determined by roof type and pitch. Two story homes on a
block of one story homes are allowed if they exhibit compatible style and
finishes.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 4 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 10
iii.
iv. Garages. Each dwelling must have a two-car detached or attached garage. If
there is an alley, it must be used for garage access. If there is not an alley,
garages shall be placed at least 5 feet behind the main front building wall of the
home. No carports are allowed
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 5 - CDBG 2004 Reallocation
Page 1
5. 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Reallocation
Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to consider funding options for the reallocation of $57,500 of
2004 CDBG funds following Council discussion at the February 21 Public Hearing.
Background:
The $57,500 of 2004 CDBG funds were planned to be used for STEP’s move to a permanent
home. STEP has not yet found a permanent location, and can not use these funds at this time.
The 2004 funds must be expended by June 2006, so these funds must be reallocated.
Reallocation of funds from one project to another allows the flexibility to ensure community
needs are met as they arise and funds are expended.
In the original CDBG staff report of February 13, staff had recommended reallocating the
$57,500 in 2004 funds for the single family deferred home rehab loan program. The reasons for
this recommendation were twofold:
• the need and activity level of this loan program remains strong, and
• County staff noted they could expend the 2004 funds by the June deadline.
Following the study session of February 13, the need for improvements at the Wayside House
became more clear to staff. Admittedly, this was very late in the CDBG process, and the first
opportunity to present a revision to the proposed reallocation to Council was in the Public
Hearing staff report for the February 21 meeting.
Issues for Consideration:
Wayside House
Wayside House is undergoing a strategic planning process that includes analysis of remaining at
their current site, the cost effectiveness of major building rehab to their current building, and
relocation considerations. The Wayside location is shown on the City’s Comp Plan as mixed use
and the right of way for a new street. It is anticipated that at some point in time Wayside will
need to relocate at least temporarily or permanently.. Staff has been having ongoing discussions
with Wayside about possible scenarios over the last year and beyond.
It has become fully apparent that a resolution regarding their location will not be imminent.
Wayside has noted that under any case they will likely be in their current building for a
minimum of two years, even three years. In the meantime, they plan to keep operations running
and have been directed by the State of MN and their mechanical consultant that the following
repairs are considered urgent:
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 5 - CDBG 2004 Reallocation
Page 2
• $18,000 for carpet replacement. A citation from the MN Health Department (see
attachment) mandates replacement of carpeting for safety issues, since it is torn, tattered
and could lead to falls. Wayside is required to make this improvement regardless of the
City’s funding decision.
• $7,500 for replacement of the water heater. The replacement of the water heater, which
has not yet failed, is a preemptive attempt to contain costs. The mechanical consultant
estimates that the heater has less than 1-year life remaining. If replacement is made
before the equipment fails, additional clean up costs and higher emergency replacement
costs would be avoided.
The property management of Wayside also notes that the building’s roof is in need of
replacement and estimates this cost at $100,000. However, since the long term use of the
building is unknown, the high cost of this repair at this time is not prudent, and they will patch as
needed. Wayside had requested $7,500 for parking lot improvements. Staff believes since this is
not critical to their operation, this improvement could be deferred.
Single Family Rehabilitation Deferred Loans
In the February 13, study session report staff had recommended the full 2004 reallocation of
$57,500 be directed to this program. This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program
targeted for homeowners with annual income of 50% or less of the median area income, or
$38,850 for a household of 4, and assets less than $25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements
to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-term maintenance free housing. The
maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years. Repayment is required if
homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires.
As noted earlier, county staff projected they could expend the money by the June deadline. The
activity level is healthy in that the previous year long waiting list no longer exists. Three projects
were completed in 2005 and another eight are funded and in process.
The funding considerations for the single family deferred loan program are unique to this activity
and should be considered in a reallocation discussion.
• This project is currently funded through loan repayment. The deferred loan program has
evolved to a revolving loan program, in that when residents move before the expiration of
the forgiveness period, the original principle is repaid. The city has been funding this
program since 1975 and currently has over 50 active loans. The repayment of loans helps
fund this project.
• This project provides budget flexibility that prevents loss of unexpended funds.
o When we have unexpended funds resulting from situations like STEP not being
able to use the money in the projected timeframe, we can “park” CDBG funds in
this project.
o Funds can be drawn down from a specific grant year or from the loan repayment
income which does not have the same deadline as grant year funds.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 5 - CDBG 2004 Reallocation
Page 3
• This project would be adequately funded with a portion of the 2004 reallocation plus loan
repayment income. However, in the future if more funds are needed for this program, a
reallocation can be considered.
Project Eligibility
The use of CDBG funds is restricted by federal guidelines, and it can be quite challenging to find
projects that meet both the community’s needs and federal guidelines. Many cities do not fully
expend their CDBG funds due to their restrictive use. Both the Wayside House improvements
and single family deferred loan program meet federal eligibility guidelines based on low income
requirements and type of work.
One Final Consideration
As part staff’s annual funding recommendations, the city’s affordable housing providers are
contacted to determine if CDBG funding would be appropriate in the coming grant year. The
focus of funding has been to make capital improvements to single family homes, apartment
buildings and community buildings that meet the needs of low income individuals such as Lenox
Center and Wayside House. CDBG funding has been instrumental in providing capital
improvements for Community Involvement Programs, Vail Place, Wayside House, Perspectives
Family Services, and Project for Pride in Living properties.
Reallocation Amounts for Council Discussion – Total Amount is $57,500
Staff recommends the following activities be funded with the 2004 reallocation:
Activity Amount
Wayside House
Carpet Replacement $18,000
Water Heater Replacement $7,500
City Admin Cost $1,200
Single Family Deferred Loan $30,800
Total $57,500
Next Steps
Upon Council direction, staff will prepare the proposed reallocation report for continuation of the
CDBG Public Hearing at the March 6, 2006 Council meeting.
Attachment: Wayside House, MN Department of Health Citation
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 6 - Alternate Sources Of Energy
Page 1
6. Alternate Sources of Energy for City Buildings Council Policy Discussion
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
Should the City Council direct staff to investigate the viability of using alternate sources of
energy – such as wind energy - to power city buildings? Mayor Jeff Jacobs will lead the
discussion on this item.
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 7 - Future Study Session Planning
Page 1
7. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To assist the City Council and the City Manager set future Study Session agendas.
Background:
Each study session, the Council sets aside approximately 10 minutes toward discussing
the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached is the tentative agenda for the
March 13, 2006 study session with the proposed discussion items. In addition, staff
would also like to discuss whether the Hwy 100 Interim Project issue should be discussed
at a special study session on March 6 or some later date. Lastly, if time permits, staff
would propose we spend a few minutes looking at the current list of unscheduled future
agenda topics, including topics individual Council members asked be placed on a future
agenda.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 7 - Future Study Session Planning
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, March 13, 2006
6:30 p.m. Discussion Items
A. 2007 Budget – Finance
Begin the preliminary discussion with Council about the 2007 budget process.
Council to consider priorities related to the 2007 budget.
B. Investments – Finance
Staff to present options for management of the City’s financial investments.
C. Top Ten Development Sites – Community Development
Staff is providing an update to Council on upcoming redevelopment sites. What
types of criteria should staff consider when evaluating future sites for
development/redevelopment?
D. Fire Station RFP- Fire Department
Should the city hire a consultant to evaluate the fire station locations and physical
requirements? Some areas for consideration could include community risk
assessment; development based growth projections, response time performance,
current facility deployment, existing facility evaluation, and cost projections.
10:00 p.m. End of Meeting
Tentative Agenda – Beyond
Community art (3/27) – Admin Services
Human Rights Commission/proposed city ordinance (3/27) – Admin Services
Review 2005 Telecomm. Commission (3/27) – TSS
Vision outcome survey results (3/27) – Admin Services
Whistle quiet zones (3/27) – PW
2005 Visioning outcomes survey – Admin Serv
36th St. streetscape plan – CD
Agenda planning – last item all study sessions – City Manager
Board of Appeals (CC-4/17) – Finance
Board of Appeals (SS-4/24) – Finance
By-laws revision Serv Dist 1, 2 & 3 – Inspections
City Goals – Admin Services
City wireless decisions (June) – TSS
CUP Nordicware minor amend spec permit pkg lot – CD
Duke Development – CD
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 022706 - 7 - Future Study Session Planning
Page 3
Tentative Agenda – Beyond-(continued)
Financial report 2nd SS each month – Finance
Historic Housing – Sanger
Liquor License – Byerly’s – Admin Serv
Louisiana alignment (prelim & final plat) – CD
Paperless agenda – Admin Serv
Park Center Housing TIF Dist – CD
Resolution sidewalk snow removal (end of March) – PW
Review Special Assessment Policy – PW/Finance
Rottland Village in the Park Phase II – CD
Sister city program – China – Admin Serv
Task Force Creek Vision – Park & Rec
Top 10 development sites (EDA SS item) – CD
Traffic control policy – PW
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 022706 - 8 - January 2006 Financial Statements
Page 1
8. January 2006 Financial Statements Finance
PURPOSE: REPORT
Attached are the January 2006 financial statements for the General Fund and the Park and
Recreation fund. The list below summarizes what is included in this packet.
1. Monthly financial statements for the overall general fund and park and recreation fund by
account summary level comparing the annual budget figures to the first month of 2006
actual figures.
2. Monthly financial statements for expenditures of the general fund by each department
and for expenditures of the park and recreation fund by each division that compares the
annual budget figures to the first month of 2006 actual figures.
Please note that a negative sign in front of a revenue figure indicates a positive number or rather
actual revenue received. In addition, when comparing the “Monthly Financial Report” to the
“Departmental Expenditure report”, the “Departmental Expenditure Report” does not include
budgeted or actual transfers nor miscellaneous expenses that are included as “other expense”.
In reviewing the January financial statements, it is important to note a couple of key factors that
had an impact this month to the monthly statements provided:
GENERAL FUND
In comparison from December’s to January’s monthly financial report, there was a significant
increase in January’s report for Personal Services. Charges for Services Revenue, Supplies,
Services and Other Charges Expenditures, Miscellaneous Revenue, Transfers In Revenue and
Transfers Out Expenditures experienced significant decreases.
Personal Services increased by approximately $126,000 which is attributed to cost of
living and step increases for staff.
Charges for Services Revenue decreased by approximately $136,000 which is attributable
to receiving the final three months of Housing Authority salary reimbursement in
December for $124,000. In addition, false alarm revenue in Fire and training revenue in
Organizational Development decreased by $9,000 and $3,000 respectively.
Supplies Expenditures decreased by $33,000, which is attributed to several factors:
reductions in purchases for Police, Fire, and Facilities Maintenance uniforms - $18,000.
General Supplies throughout the City - $9,000. Building/Structure supplies for Facilities
Maintenance - $4,000. Fire Programs - $2,000.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 022706 - 8 - January 2006 Financial Statements
Page 2
Services and Other Charges Expenditures decreased by approximately $133,000 due to
the following areas: Electrical Services not yet billed for January - $39,000.
Miscellaneous other contractual services throughout the City - $32,000. Reduced heating
gas bills - $20,000. Two months of billings in December for LOGIS Applications and
Network Support - $20,000. Street lighting repairs incurred in December - $14,000.
Reduced subsistence services in January - $8,000.
Miscellaneous Revenue decreased by over $32,600 which resulted from reimbursement
for the firefighters who assisted in the Hurricane Katrina cleanup paid in December.
Transfers In Revenue decreased by approximately $193,000 which is attributable to
transfers not being posted for January from the Police and Fire Pension, Special
Revenues and Utilities Funds. In February, there will be two months of entries posted.
Transfers Out Expenditures decreased by $1,300,000 which is a result of Resolution #05-
181 which maintains minimum fund balances in Park and Recreation, Technology
Replacement, Employee Benefit and the Municipal Building Funds.
PARKS AND RECREATION
In reviewing the Park and Recreation fund, the monthly financial report shows decreases in
Charges for Services revenue, Services and Other Charges expenditures and Transfers In
revenue. Miscellaneous revenue and Personal Services expenditures both had significant
increases.
The net decrease in Charges for Services Revenue of approximately $21,000 is
attributable to several items: Decrease in DED tree revenue of approximately $53,000,
and an increase in program revenue at the Rec. Center and Westwood Hills of $32,000
The decrease in Services and Other Charges of approximately $17,000 is entirely
attributable to cleaning/waste removal of trees.
Transfers In decreased by $103,000 which is attributed to Resolution #05-181 which
maintains a minimum fund balance in Park and Recreation.
Miscellaneous Revenue increased by approximately $23,000 which pertains to additional
ice rental at the Rec. Center.
Personal Services Expenditures increased by approximately $26,000 which is attributed
to cost of living and step increases for staff.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 022706 - 8 - January 2006 Financial Statements
Page 3
Additional reminders from previous reports:
Since the City budgets on an annual basis, the budget numbers that appear on the monthly
financial reports are annual figures. However, the actual revenues and expenditures are
monthly figures. Therefore, you will see much fluctuation in the month to month
comparison.
The interest revenue allocation is not yet reflected in the Year-to date actual numbers.
Therefore, interest revenue is showing as a negative number. This number will be offset
with the interest earnings once the allocation is completed.
Due to the fact that overall revenues are low during the beginning months of each year,
the city keeps a reserve of approximately four months of expenditures for cash flow
purposes.
The numbers for the year are not final until all year end adjustments are made to
accurately reflect the year’s activity and the fiscal year subsequently closed. This will
take place after the auditors’ complete their fieldwork.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements
Prepared By: Brian Swanson, Accounting Manager
Reviewed By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 022706 - 9 - Acquisition Of Property-Redev. Golden Auto Site
Page 1
9. Acquisition of Property – Redevelopment of Golden Auto Site Community
Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Staff wishes to report on the need for letters from the city which threatens the exercise of
eminent domain over several properties needed to facilitate the cleanup and redevelopment of the
former National Lead/Golden Auto site (located at 7003 Lake Street immediately east of Sam’s
Club).
Background:
Real Estate Recycling has plans to cleanup and redevelop the former National Lead/Golden Auto
property located at 7003 Lake Street W. along with several properties to the east along
Hampshire Ave. These include the Caryn International School located at 6651 Highway 7 and
the Citiplace Properties buildings located at 3625 - 3633 Hampshire Ave. The developer
acquired the Citiplace properties in November 2005 and plans to close on the purchase of the
Caryn School in mid- March. Included within the purchase agreements for these properties are
requests by the property owners that the developer seek letters from the city which threaten the
exercise of eminent domain over their respective properties. Such letters would provide the
property owners additional time to reinvest any capital gains realized on the sale of their
properties thereby reducing exposure to capital gains taxes. The city previously provided a
similar letter for Rottlund Homes to help facilitate the purchase of a property to allow for the
redevelopment of the former Quadion property.
Staff plans to have the EDA’s legal counsel prepare these letters so as to allow the developer to
fulfill their obligations under these property purchase agreements. Please let us know if you
have questions or concerns about this.
Prepared By: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager