The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020/10/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA OCT. 19, 2020 All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with a local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056. The chief administrator has determined that in-person council or commission/committee meetings are not feasible due to the pandemic. EDA meeting is cancelled; Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m. All members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Monday, Oct. 19 city council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports. Members of the public can monitor the meeting at by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859, or CenturyLink SD channel 8117 and HD channel 8617) For audio only call +1.312.535.8110 and use access code 372 106 61. Members of the public who want to address the city council during the regular meeting about items on the agenda should call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. Call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided. Comments will be taken during each item in the order they are received and must relate to an item on the current city council agenda. •952.562.2886 – consent agenda items 4a-4o •952.562.2887 – item 6a – Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance •952.562.2888 – item 6b – Assessment of delinquent charges •952.562.2886 – item 8a – Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) •952.562.2887 – item 8b – TS 734 – Yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin & Princeton Aves. 5:30 p.m. GROUNDBREAKING – Dakota Edgewood Bridge (Dakota Park - 2643 Dakota Ave. S.) 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1.Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2.Pre sentations 2a. Community Media Day 2b. Recognition of Councilmember Anne Mavity 3.Approval of minutes 3a. Study session meeting minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 3b. City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 Meeting of Oct. 19, 20 20 City c ouncil agenda 4.Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar Recommended action: **Motion to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda , or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 4a. A pprove the second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 36 of the City Code to allow accessory dwelling units and approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4b . A pprove the second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 36-362 pertaining to painted signs and approve summary ordinance for publication. 4c. Approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 36-366 pertaining to architectural design and approve summary ordinance for publication. 4d . Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 2915 Huntington Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 31-029-24-44-0023. 4e . Adopt Resolution authorizing yield signs on Alabama Avenue at 35th Street. 4f . Adopt Resolution authorizing stop signs on Hampshire Avenue at 33rd Street. 4g . Adopt Resolution authorizing stop signs on Maryland Avenue at Franklin Avenue. 4h . Adopt Resolution authorizing a yield sign on Wyoming Avenue at 33rd Street. 4i . A dopt Resolution authorizing a yield sign on 18th Street at Hillsboro Avenue. 4j . Approve an amendment to the cooperative agreement between Hennepin County and City of St. Louis Park to further the goals of the Southwest Light Rail Transit / Green Line Extension (SWLRT) and the Southwest Community Works Investment Framework. 4k. Approve the 2021 Acceptable Materials and Exemptions list and Administrative Rules. 4l . Adopt Resolutions to recognize Electrical Inspector Bernie Riley and Part Time Firefighters Nancy We iman -Schmelzle and Mark Flumerfelt for their years of service. 4m . Adopt Resolution establishing the employer contribution for benefits in 2021. 4n. Approve for filing parks & rec advisory commission minutes of Jan. 14, 2020. 4o. Approve for filing parks & rec advisory commission minutes of Aug. 12, 2020. 5.Boards and commissions 5a. Appointment of youth representatives to boards and commissions Recommended action: Motion to appoint youth representatives to the boards and commissions as listed in exhibit A. 6.Public hearings 6a. Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance adopting fees for 2021 and set second reading for Nov. 2, 2020. 6b. Assessment of delinquent charges Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the public hearing. No Further action. Approval of resolution at November 2, 2020 meeting. 7.Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None Meeting of Oct. 19, 20 20 City c ouncil agenda 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project no. 4022-2000, approving the staff recommended concept designs and authorizing the design of final plans. 8b . Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a yield signs on Vallacher Avenue at Quentin Avenue and Princeton Avenue. 9. Communications – None **NOTE : The consent calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a councilmember or a member of the public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on the entrance doors to city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after noon on Friday on the city’s website. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525. Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Presentation: 2a Executive summary Title: Community Media Day Recommended action: Mayor is asked to read the proclamation recognizing Oct. 20, 2020, as Community Media Day in St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: Not applicable Summary: Community media activities through ParkTV support the city’s strategic direction of creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement by fostering and facilitating transparency between the community and the city. Each year, dozens of St. Louis Park community members contribute content, time and services to the city’s cable channel programming. In addition, ParkTV on-location staff receive invaluable services from volunteer announcers. In 2020, the efforts of ParkTV staff and their community partners were even more important in helping the community stay engaged in local government, events and activities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. ParkTV staff have helped ensure council and commission meetings have continued to be accessible to the community to view . They have help ed to deliver content in new and engaging ways, including recording and editing several videos for the community as part of the virtual City Safe event that replaced this year’s National Night Out and fire department open house events, and in assisting the city’s park and recreation staff as they provided virtual programming during the COVID-19 shutdown earlier this summer. As high school sports started up this fall, ParkTV staff have provided innovative solutions so that fans and parents who couldn’t attend in person due to COVID-19 restrictions have been able to view events through local cable television channels, Granicus live streaming, YouTube and Facebook Live . Through its longstanding partnership with the Lenox Community Center, ParkTV staff have helped deliver interesting and engaging recorded content to the city’s senior population, a group most isolated by the effects of COVID-19. Financial or budget considerations: None Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Proclamation Prepared by: Jacque Smith, communications and marketing manager Reviewed by: Clint Pires, chief information officer Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 2a) Title: Community Media Day Proclamation Community Media Day Oct. 20, 2020 Whereas, Community Media Day is an annual celebration of voices that brings awareness to the importance of free speech and accessible media for all individuals to have their voices heard; and Whereas, ParkTV supports the city’s strategic direction of creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement by foster ing and facilitating transparency between the community and the city; and Whereas, the im portance of community media in maintaining transparency and engaging and educating the community has been made even more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic; and Whereas, many St. Louis Park community members contributed content, time and services to the city’s cable channel programming; and Whereas, the ParkTV on-location staff of a program producer and production assistants is assisted by volunteer announcers. Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city c ouncil of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim Oct. 20, 2020, as Community Media Day and call upon all residents and civic organizations to be aware of the quality programming produced by dozens of dedicated residents and small yet dedicated staff, and to recognize the contributions they make every day to discovering, recording, reporting, editing, cablecasting and webstreaming the stories and events that make St. Louis Park a remarkable community. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. L ouis Park to be affixed this 19th day of October , 2020. _________________________________ Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Presentation: 2b Executive summary Title: Recognition of Councilmember Anne Mavity Recommended action: On behalf of the city council and city manager, the mayor is asked to recognize councilmember Anne Mavity for her years of service as councilmember Ward 2 of the City of St. Louis Park from January 4, 2010 to October 31, 2020. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Approve d by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/ HR director Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes City council study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Sept. 14, 2020 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog. Councilmembers absent: none. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), CFO (Ms. Lammers), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Police Chief Harcey, Fire Chief Koering, CIO (Mr. Pires), Building and Energy Director (Mr. Hoffman), Finance Manager (Ms. Sledge), Sustainability Manager (Mr. Ziring), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Sustainability Specialist (Ms. Pottorff), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Stacy Kilvang & Liz Diaz, Ehlers. 1. 2021 budget Ms. Lammers and Ms. Kvilvang presented the report. Councilmember Rog asked if 16% debt service is typical for a city like St. Louis Park, and where the city sits as debt service increases. Ms. Kvilvang stated St. Louis Park is at the mid-point for debt service, adding typically the mid-point is 12-16%, noting this benchmark is used as a guidepost. Councilmember Kraft asked how revenue from services impacts the levy. Ms. Kvilvang stated if more permit fees are received than anticipated, then council can look at reducing the tax levy, adding staff can average fees out against the levy. Councilmember Kraft asked if increases in services, such as at The Roc, will be budgeted for 2021. Ms. Kvilvang stated yes. Councilmember Harris asked what the city’s debt ceiling is and where the city is regarding debt capacity. Ms. Kvilvang stated this is based 100% on the tax levy, and improvements with special assessment do not count against the debt. She noted very little of the city’s debt is supported by taxes. Councilmember Harris asked if $32 million plus is representative of the city’s approved tax levy of 4.96% for 2020. Ms. Kvilvang stated yes this is based on the 2020 tax rate of 4.96%. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 Councilmember Rog asked for a definition of a robust capital replacement plan. Ms. Kvilvang stated this refers to the capital replacement plan being very well-articulated and laid out, and very detailed and specific. Councilmember Rog stated given half of St. Louis Park citizens are renters, what are the levy impacts to rental properties, and can the council get a better sense of how property owners are impacted by the levy. Ms. Kvilvang stated that is not included in the report, but she will work on this with staff and present those impacts to the council. Councilmember Brausen confirmed that the city’s long-range capital improvement plan is budgeted out 10 years, while many cities only project out 5 years. Ms. Kvilvang confirmed this is correct. Ms. Lammers pointed out that with a 3% tax levy, the average homeowner would see a decrease in their taxes of $3 per month. She added with a tax levy at 6.1%, the average homeowner would see a $37 per month increase. Ms. Sledge noted proposed utility rate increases for 2021 include a 5% increase for water, solid waste and storm sewer. She noted this is $53 per year per household, adding this increase will allow the city to cover capital improvement projects, such as street improvements, and work on water treatment plants, sewer mainline rehab, stormwater, Minnehaha Creek projects, and alley projects. Councilmember Rog asked what happens if projects are postponed a year or two. Ms. Lammers stated staff evaluates this each year and will confer with Ehlers again to make sure the base rate matches uses. She pointed out this is not a fixed item but can vary depending on if it is a very dry or very wet year. Mr. Harmening added at a future meeting council will be presented a spreadsheet of every capital project proposed at the $5000 and higher level and by streets, and utilities, parks and playgrounds, along with other areas. Councilmember Harris asked for confirmation on the increasing quarterly utility rate at $14.43 for water, sewer, solid waste and storm water. Ms. Sledge confirmed the rate noting that is for the average homeowner using 30 units. Councilmember Harris asked what percentage increase that is. Ms. Sledge stated it is a 5% increase and then a 4% increase on sewer only. Mr. Harmening added water main replacement occurs based on the age or breakage on a particular segment, adding if this type of project moves out a year, there can be consequences. He stated council and staff will need to review capital projects, including playground equipment replacement, to look at what future costs might be. Councilmember Harris noted utility rates can be a challenge for families noting a family had been in touch with her about their rates. She asked what the increase was last year. Ms. Diaz stated in 2020 water was a 4.4% increase, sewer 4.7%, and solid waste was 6%. She added the proposed percentages for 2021 are in line with past figures. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 Mr. Harmening added the constituent noted by Councilmember Harris may have referred to the tiered rates the city had in 2020, noting there are consequences for larger families if they use large amounts of water. Councilmember Harris stated it seems utility rates are higher than discussed in terms of an ideal levy, and she would like utility rates to be in line with the tax levy, however noted she does acknowledge the importance of maintaining city infrastructure. Councilmember Mavity stated she wants to be super thoughtful about utilities rates, noting the council took a deep dive into this a few years back to be sure rates reflect cost and create a reserve. She stated if rates are not stepped up and kept flat, if an infrastructure problem occurs with water or sewer, then costs are suddenly passed on to the homeowner, which the council was trying to avoid. She stated this was an intentional approach to shield residents from being hit with huge replacement costs in one year, adding it is better to plan and bid. Ms. Diaz stated the flat fees cover those costs and in general covers personnel and maintenance. Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Mavity’s comments, and added we recognize utility rate increases impact homeowners and everyone in the community, but the council studied the rates and needed to build them up over time in order to build the city’s infrastructure over time. He stated he appreciates building up the funds so unexpected issues can be handled when they come up, such as the water treatment plant #4 retrofit issue a few years back. He added the unassigned general fund is revenues collected over the past years that have exceeded budgeted amounts, and then there is always cash on hand at least 45% including excess funds which is the city’s reserve. Councilmember Kraft stated he is not interested in making short-term decisions that are ignorant of long-term considerations around infrastructure, which can be penny wise and pound foolish. He asked about increases that are built-in and that staff says there is a need to re-examine the capital plan around utility fee structure, and if that is correct. Mr. Harmening stated yes, adding this will include review around all of the capital plan items. Councilmember Kraft asked if this examination will happen before utility rates are finalized. Ms. Lammers stated the goal is to dig into those items, and have some idea of infrastructure and strategic goals, however she added this may take more time. Councilmember Kraft stated he hasn’t seen any data on the funds for capital infrastructure yet. He stated in principle he doesn’t want to make short-term decisions that will cause long-term pain, but added if there is a year to put off projects to keep utility rates increases at a minimum, while still being responsible to infrastructure, this might be the year to do so. Councilmember Rog stated she would like to discuss utility rates as they apply to commercial properties, noting businesses such as Japs Olson and Park Nicollet are not seeing the same increase as residential properties. Mr. Harmening stated last year the council increased commercial and residential rates significantly, and staff can provide council with more information on this. Ms. Diaz added in 2018 a utility rate analysis was conducted which looked City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 at all rates in the city. Ms. Diaz explained there was a flat rate in industrial and commercial properties, which was changed to a tiered rate. Mayor Spano asked for clarification about whether or not the city can charge different tax rates for different property values. Ms. Lammers stated no, there is one rate across the board for all homes. Mayor Spano asked about cash reserves within the budget and if there is one-half years’ worth of cash reserves held in the budget in the event of infrastructure problems. Ms. Lammers stated that is correct, adding this allows the city to be in a strong position for cash flow and to have reserves on hand. Mayor Spano asked what the crossover line is in the fund balance with a 3% levy increase. Ms. Lammers stated that depends on what is decided on the long-term capital plan, noting a fund balance of $300,000 will be used. Mayor Spano asked for the status of the development fund and housing fund. Ms. Lammers stated both funds are healthy and fine. Ms. Kvilvang noted there is $24 million within those funds currently, but they can be depleted quickly. Mayor Spano pointed out the council will need to make some decisions then to direct these funds in order to maintain healthy fund balances. Ms. Kvilvang agreed. Councilmember Mohamed thanked staff for the report, and council for asking good questions. She stated she is comfortable supporting the 4.5% levy to give staff flexibility, but she is hoping for the 3% levy. She added if there was a year to tighten our belts, this would be the year. She stated she really wants to be considerate of residents, impacts to rental properties and added she would also like information from staff on these impacts also. Councilmember Mavity stated with rental the city has the 4D program, and pointed out there are many efforts at the state level to ensure more affordability, as well as other ways to target for those willing to restrict their rents to receive those benefits. Councilmember Mavity added when looking at the tax levy, the council needs to remember that citizens are not only tax payers, but they are people who want value from the city as well. She noted the council does not want to lose sight that residents ask for the highest level of services from the city, and also ask the council to be financially responsible. She pointed out the city holding the AAA bond rating for many years is evidence the city is trusted by citizens. Councilmember Mavity pointed out that lower value homes and higher value homes are just reflections of the market and $250,000 homes are in high demand, are going up, adding that market value increases equal paying more taxes. She stated she is more interested in the dollar impact vs. percentages, noting this levy is set yearly and then the council always brings it down. She stated the council will not want to keep it too low, so that they cannot bring it down later. Councilmember Kraft asked about several capital funds which have negative cash balances, which ones they are, and how bad that is. Ms. Lammers stated they don’t have negative City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 balances yet, but they will go negative with anticipated capital plans. She continued they will need to be adjusted for 2021, including pavement management, franchise fees, the park improvement fund for park projects, sidewalks, and trails. Councilmember Kraft asked if one particular levy percentage will be able to fix this and if there is justification for the 6.11% levy number. Ms. Lammers stated the tax levy will remove debt or the city will need to cut back on projects, adding this will need to be discussed and decided on. Councilmember Kraft asked about the general fund balance being maintained at 45% and where the city is on that. Ms. Lammers stated every year everything over 45% is assigned, and this will be evaluated after the 2020 audit again. Councilmember Kraft noted the funds received from the Cares Act and stated it seems like there should be an excess fund balance, and no need for the levy to increase in order to fix the fund balance. Mr. Harmening stated the Cares Act funds, which are $3.6 million, are being used in accordance with federal and state laws, with monthly reporting by the city. He stated the worst case of negative impacts will be related to the 2nd half of property tax payment at the end of 2020 and also in 2021. He continued assuming a 3% delinquency rate for 2020, the Cares Funds will be a backstop for that loss of revenue. He stated there are just too many unknowns with the economy, COVID, and the election and staff recommends a solid backstop. Councilmember Kraft noted the levy amount includes assumptions of certain levels of council projects at $150,000 and climate plans, which are the same amounts as last year but which were not spent at that level. He asked if this amount is included in the levy. Ms. Lammers stated yes, all council projects are included in the 2021 levy plans now. Councilmember Kraft stated folks at the lower end of home values will see levy increase; however, he was happy to see the ADUs and zoning discussions and noted these will be the only way to impact homes at the lower end. He stated he is uncomfortable at the 6.11% level, but uncomfortable at the 3% level as well, so would support the 4.5% tax levy for staff flexibility. Mayor Spano pointed out the Cares Act funds cannot be spent on just anything adding that from March through December of 2020, this can only be used for COVID-related items and cannot be used to offset the fund balance or the general fund. Mr. Harmening agreed, adding COVID funds pay for public safety time expenses as well. Councilmember Rog asked if Hennepin County is proposing a 0% levy increase. Ms. Lammers stated she did not know. Councilmember Rog asked if there is any relevance to the city’s decision making, related to Hennepin County’s levy. Ms. Lammers stated Hennepin County has their own financial situation adding she does not know their plans. Councilmember Rog stated it’s important to be aware of the full tax bill residents will have to help form council’s decision. She added with regard to new staff positions, 4 of 6 are in public safety, and while she supports public safety, she has pointed out in the past that public safety has the largest increases each year, and she does not support adding expenditures in that area without knowing more. She is curious to see where the savings will come from with the City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 addition of 3-4 firefighters and wants to better understand this. Mr. Harmening stated staff can provide additional information on the financials in moving from a combination fire department to a total full-time department, noting that salary is the biggest component. He added this change in overtime and shifts showed a savings of $120,000. Councilmember Rog stated these increases in public safety require more discussion by council, adding council gives it a pass too often. She is also uncomfortable with a slush fund on climate projects, stating she is for being more planful. She stated she supports the 4.5% tax levy at this time, to provide staff more flexibility. Councilmember Harris stated she is concerned about managing infrastructure debt and fund balances, noting the council needs to be stewards for residents, and for their children’s children, and for the city’s resources. She stated she originally endorsed the 3% levy, but now will support the 6.11% to provide for the city’s climate action goals, in light of climate change. Councilmember Brausen stated he is more concerned about impacts than optics, adding the impact of a 3% or 6% is $3 to $4 per month. He stated the higher levy will allow salaries for additional staff and essential services and give employees a well-deserved 2% cost of living increase, while giving funds to help support the climate action plan. He added COVID has been hard on many, but if we don’t increase the levy, the city won’t have funds to help at all, adding residents need to be asked to fund city government and provide city services. He noted 85% in the city are still employed and can handle the increases, and in the past residents in this community have supported good and effective government and voters have overwhelmingly approved school levies also, even though many don’t have kids in school. Councilmember Brausen added if climate action plans are delayed now, they will cost more down the road. He stated he supports the 6.11% levy increase and trusts staff will get it down to the 5% range. Mayor Spano thanked staff for being intentional with financials adding he is supportive of the 6.11% tax levy and working it down from there while allowing staff maximum flexibility. Mayor Spano also noted -- going back to Councilmember Rog’s earlier question -- both Hennepin and Ramsey counties are discussing a 0% tax increase for 2021. He added 4 councilmembers are at the 6.11% level at this time. Councilmember Kraft noted council started this at the 3% range, and clarified one of the reasons he moved from the 3% to 4.5% levy is because he sees a desperate need for climate action work. He agreed it would be good to see more planful work, but he is in favor of money dedicated to climate action, resulting in direct reductions for folks and savings. He stated there might be creative ways to get savings here and he is dedicated to this work. He added he does not believe the 2% cost of living increase for staff is essential, as much as he appreciates staff’s work and given the recession, the responsible amount is less than that. He added the 4th position in firefighters is not essential, and given the time we are in, we need to look at essential items vs. non-essential. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 Councilmember Kraft added he does not want to see line items broken out for environmental sustainability and racial equity, adding this is a lens we must view for all city work and is part of the city’s top strategic goals. He stated it misrepresents city priorities by breaking them out separately. Mayor Spano pointed out the council asked for the break out of climate and race equity work line items, so as to see the investment. He did, however, agree this needs to be embedded in the city’s work. Councilmember Rog stated 85% of us may be working, but 50% of African Americans are on unemployment and it’s important to not assume everyone is doing the same as others. She added she could get behind a larger investment in climate if she knew what it was, and also know outcomes being worked toward. Councilmember Mohamed added the climate change and racial equity breakout is helpful for a better understanding and she would like to keep it that way. She added it is important to see where the money is going. Ms. Lammers stated staff will return to council on Sept. 21, 2020 with details on the levy and the HRA levy. 2. Process for filling council ward 2 seat After discussion, it was the consensus of the council, that the process will involve applications, in-person interviews, and ranked choice voting (RCV) by the council, in appointing the replacement for the Ward 2 city council seat. Ms. Solano added staff will draft the interview questions for council to review and RCV will be used to select the candidate. Staff will present the full process, as directed by council, at an upcoming study session . 3. Climate change in response to Covid-19: Energy Efficiency Day/Home Energy Squad challenge proclamation Ms. Ziring and Ms. Pottorff presented information about the Xcel Energy home energy saving program. They stated it will be important to the city’s climate action program to promote this to citizens in order to create energy efficiency in as many homes as possible, and home energy reductions by 35% by 2030. Ms. Ziring stated the city that gains the highest number per capita for signing up with the program wins a traveling trophy and since the end of July, St. Louis Park has had 102 energy squad visits, and is in the lead. Ms. Pottorff added on Oct. 7, the fifth annual nation-wide energy efficiency day will occur with the goal to promote multiple benefits of energy efficiency. She stated they will work to combine the Xcel home energy efficiency program with this nation-wide energy efficiency day and include the council’s proclamation in the packet. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 Councilmember Brausen stated he is supportive of this, and commended staff for the great job. He stated he will call out the city of Edina and others at a meeting next week that he will attend. Mayor Spano stated he also supports this and is happy to make the proclamation. He stated he has signed up for his home audit as well. Councilmember Kraft stated this is fantastic and he is excited for Councilmember Brausen to call out the other communities next week. He asked how the city can increase these numbers, possibly by reaching out to neighborhood associations, or create a competition, or engage the high school and Roots and Shoots group, along with the school district to promote this further. He stated he would like to see this go from 100 to 500 to 1,000 homes participating, and asked how he can help. Ms. Ziring stated staff has reached out to Roots and Shoots and connected with the schools and school district. She added the media kit has been sent out and much has been posted about the program to social media, mailed and included in the Park Perspective, plus information was distributed at the Westwood Nature Center ribbon cutting ceremony as well. Ms. Pottorff stated she is also working with community organizers on reaching out and working with houses of worship, as well as partners at centers for environment. She noted she is also working on a new flyer for homestead packets, and is also open to more creative ideas. Councilmember Mohamed stated she is very supportive of this and states she worked at the CCE housing authority, and recalled going into rental properties. She asked how this information is getting to renters and properties the city owns. Ms. Pottorff stated she has worked with Ms. Olson in housing on this, and they have done much outreach on this. She added she plans to follow up and collaborate more with Ms. Olson on this program, and noted they are looking for ways to collaborate. Information has also gone into the Sparks newsletter and into other departments as well. Councilmember Rog asked the councilmembers to give a show of hands if they have completed this program. She is supportive as well and asked about metrics, such as the number of light bulbs replaced, or number of doors weather stripped, or energy savings that are occurring. Ms. Ziring stated she is not sure this information is tracked, but she will follow up with the CCE. Councilmember Rog stated word of mouth outreach will be valuable, adding she will do this and encouraged others to as well. Councilmember Harris thanked staff for this program support and asked about outreach to rental properties. She encouraged making this a celebratory family-friendly competition, and asked if any single-family homes that are rentals have been involved. Ms. Ziring stated information has gone into the Park Perspective, so it has gone to owned properties, but noted they are trying to be mindful of budget concerns, and so are leaning on Spark and housing staff to get the word out. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 9 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 Councilmember Harris asked if information goes into the utility bill. Ms. Ziring stated since so many do not receive mailed bills any longer, staff decided not to spend money on this, and CCE stated it is not worth the money that goes into it. Councilmember Kraft noted it would be possible to tie this program into the levy and for folks that have gone through the home energy process, note they have made an up-front investment. He asked if there is any way to tie in the quarter utility bill in the program or tie it into what the city funds for energy investments. 4. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Mayor Spano and the councilmembers noted they supports future study session topics of: - Looking at black home ownership - Youth on commissions Councilmember Kraft added he would like more substantial discussion on youth on commissions, adding he would like to see a different process for youth competing for the same slots on commissions. He would like council to talk to all youth and also more spots open on commissions for youth members. Councilmember Rog agreed and added she would like to take more time on this also, noting these positions are important to youth, and an interview with city council is important to youth during these formative years. She continued this is part of the council’s role and responsibility and a good way to give youth a rich and positive experience. Mayor Spano stated that is fair and appropriate, and asked if it might be appropriate to have an interview panel of councilmembers to conduct the interviews. Ms. Solano stated staff will set a plan for this and bring back recommendations to the council for a panel interview process. Mayor Spano left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Harris conducted the remainder of the meeting. Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) Written Reports Discussion: Councilmember Kraft referenced the Comcast franchise fees, noting at a high level it felt like it might be an underrepresentation of content. He stated more folks are disconnecting from cable, and he is not sure how that impacts fees going forward. He added there is no analysis in the report, and most respondents were white and with 94%+ he does not feel they are getting the full spectrum of viewpoints. Councilmember Rog agreed with Councilmember Kraft’s statements, and added programming in others languages is also missing, and that was called out. She hoped something can be done on this. She added with the decline in local print media, it is critical that local stories be told, City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 10 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 and she is pleased this is a focus. She asked the status of federal renewal. Mr. Pires stated the 621 order by the FCC allows cable companies to reduce franchise fees. He stated a change of administration in Washington will impact this, adding there may be reversals in the future with new administrative appointments, so the impacts are not known as yet. Mr. Pires added some are cutting cable, but there are still over 10,000 households that subscribe in St. Louis Park, which is a decrease from 65% to 50% subscriptions. He stated if folks don’t have cable, then they typically have internet services to get programming. Councilmember Mavity stated the small businesses assistance report was helpful and she celebrates all the hard work staff did and thanked them. She added in the future, she would like to see the disaggregate information in order to get better tracking. Councilmember Rog requested to have a council discussion at a future study session on zoning and ordinance and design at Walker Lake. Mr. Harmening stated if 4 council members want to do that, that can be added to a study session. Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciates the in-depth written reports from staff, and cautioned the council that the written reports are not to be discussed in-depth. She added she is comfortable with where staff is guiding on Walker Lake and supports staff direction on this. She stated it is not the time in study session to do a whole council discussion on written reports. Councilmember Kraft stated he had sent emails to staff as he did not have background on several items and study session is the time to discuss topics like zoning changes. Councilmember Mohamed stated she read the written reports and does not see a need for a study session to go deeper into zoning, but if there is consensus she will participate. Mr. Harmening stated this is an ordinance and in terms of moving to a different zoning, that would come to council in the future, and to the planning commission. He stated staff is working on this, plus the design guidelines at Walker Lake, and if individual council members have questions or want to understand, staff can discuss it individually with them. He pointed out there will be two readings of the zoning ordinance before council would approve it. Councilmember Rog stated these changes late in the game concern her, she wants to see what we already allow, and wants the whole council to see it together. Mr. Harmening stated staff has kept council informed of changes here, and staff is following direction from council on this, but if council wants to discuss at a study session, he will need 4 councilmembers to advise staff. Councilmember Rog stated she will have a conversation with Ms. Barton on the zoning. Ms. Barton stated there will be a virtual neighborhood meeting Oct. 6 or 8, 2020 and a public hearing Oct. 21, 2020 with planning commission on the Walker Lake district. Councilmember Rog noted the ADU, asked why they are being limited, and how does the city define a family. She stated she is worried about certain populations being left out by the way City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 11 Title: Study session minutes of Sept. 14, 2020 it’s being permitted with ADU’s and single-family homes. Ms. Barton stated right now because properties are not rezoned for two-family, they are single- family and this is how occupancy is looked at on the entire lot. She noted the definition of a single-family is how either of those units can be occupied and goes by the city’s definition of family that is in the current zoning ordinance. She stated staff thought council would want to revisit the definition of family in the future, and added that the planning commission was very supportive of this as it currently is. Councilmember Rog agreed the council may want to revisit this in the future. She also expressed her support for owners needing to reside on properties in one of the two units vs. having renters in both units. She thanked staff for the Walker Lake report stating it was very well done. Councilmember Kraft asked if there were no zoning constraints, is this what staff would recommend. Ms. Barton stated when looking at the size of ADUs, typically they are not large enough for a larger family, and are usually for 1-2 people, so the way the zoning looks for single-family currently looks best. Councilmember Harris stated she has been excited about the concept of the ADU as a way to create more density. She stated this is a stepping stone to thinking about density in the city’s neighborhoods, pointing out that Minneapolis now allows duplexes, triplexes, and quads in single-family neighborhoods, which allows for home ownership for many that cannot afford homes. The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. Small business assistance update 6. Painted signs zoning code text amendment 7. Comcast franchise renewal updates 8. Accessory dwelling units 9. Update on Historic Walker Lake zoning ordinance and design guidelines 10. Livable Communities Act enrollment and life-cycle housing goals for 2021-2030 11. Update on PLACES art initiative ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Minutes: 3b Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Sept. 21, 2020 1. Call to order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog Councilmembers absent: None Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), CFO (Ms. Lammers), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Finance Managers (Ms. Sledge), HR Manager (Ms. Timpone), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas) Guests: None 2. Presentations 2a. Retirement recognition for Police Officer Todd Hinz Mayor Spano read a resolution honoring Officer Hinz for his 30 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. Mayor Spano thanked Officer Hinz on behalf of the council. Mr. Harmening stated he is happy for Officer Hinz, noting he has been a department mainstay and it will be a great loss to the city and the department. 2b. Climate change in response to COVID-19: energy efficiency day/home energy squad challenge proclamation Mayor Spano read the proclamation relating to energy efficiency day and the home energy squad challenge. Councilmember Brausen stated there are 17,000 residents in St. Louis Park that can participate in the program, adding he hopes the city gets 10% or more to participate. He encouraged all to participate and noted costs should not be a deterrent. He encouraged folks to challenge their neighbors to do the home energy analysis, and also challenged Edina and Golden Valley to participate in the challenge as well. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 Councilmember Kraft added if it weren’t for COVID, he would be knocking on doors for this program, and thanked Councilmember Brausen for bringing up this idea. He stated the energy visit starts with a virtual free visit, and then a home visit follows. He encouraged all to go to the St. Louis Park city website, and search home energy squad, which provides a link. Councilmember Rog asked staff to clarify when the 50% match from the city ends or if it has ended already. Mr. Harmening stated he will find out and let her know. Councilmember Rog stated on social media it says the program has ended. She added the program is great and she had it done at her home and also encouraged 2 of her neighbors to sign up, so she hopes the match is still available, adding there does need to be clarification around this. Councilmember Harris stated she would like the match to go through Oct. 7, 2020 to coincide with the proclamation. She asked what assistance the city provides to citizens related to energy. Mr. Harmening stated there is nothing from a program perspective the city does, however, have the city does offer emergency assistance programs through community development block grant funds and residents need to qualify for that. Councilmember Harris asked staff to ensure information on energy is easy to find on the city website and can be linked near the proclamation as well. Mr. Harmening stated staff will make sure folks will be able to connect to the information. Mayor Spano stated STEP also has energy resource information on their website. Councilmember Brausen added the city website has links to all resources, including non- profits, for residents. 2c. Recognition of donations Mayor Spano noted a $310,000 donation from Maurice Hobbs to construct an outdoor open-air shelter for youth programming at Westwood Hills Nature Center in memory of his wife Barbara Hobbs. Mayor Spano thanked Mr. Hobbs on behalf of the council and the citizens of St. Louis Park. Councilmember Brausen added this donation speaks to the generosity of St. Louis Park residents. He noted an initial $200,000 donation that funded the Nature Center feasibility study, as well as other gifts along way, adding it is heartwarming to see this generosity, along with taxpayer support. 3. Approval of minutes 3a. City council meeting minutes of Aug. 17, 2020 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 Councilmember Rog stated on page 7 in the last paragraph it should read “…if federal funding is guaranteed or possibly in jeopardy.” Councilmember Rog stated on page 8, at the top, if should read “Councilmember Rog added if there is a change in leadership our limited resources may need to be in other things.” It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve the Aug. 17, 2020 city council meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. Study session minutes of Aug. 24, 2020 Councilmember Kraft noted on page 7, paragraph 3 from bottom, it should read, “…with the full-time model because they were focusing on the part-time effort.” It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the Aug. 24, 2020 study session meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar 4a. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2593-20 vacating portions of utility easements at 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication. 4b. Authorize a comment letter to be submitted to the Public Utilities Commission regarding Xcel Energy’s 2020-2034 Upper Midwest Integrated Resource Plan. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 20-126 electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account program and adopting the housing goals for 2021-2030. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8d.) 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 20-127 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $9,216.20 for project no. 4019-9007 modifications to the Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7, Contract No. 86-18. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 20-128 to execute memo of understanding between the Hopkins Chemical Assessment Team and the City of St. Louis Park. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 20-129 approving acceptance of $310,000 from Maurice Hobbs to construct an outdoor open-air shelter for youth programming at Westwood Hills Nature Center in memory of his wife, Barbara Hobbs. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 20-130 to recognize Police Officer Todd Hinz for his 30 years of service. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 20-131 approving labor agreement between the city and the police officer’s employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of employment for one year, from 1/1/2020 – 12/31/2020. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 20-132 approving deferral of special assessment – 4405 Cedar Lake Rd, St. Louis Park, MN. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 20-133 approving deferral of special assessment – 2150 Ridge Dr. # 28, St. Louis Park, MN. 4k. Adopt Resolution No. 20-134 establishing the 2020 Interim Childcare/ Tutoring Reimbursement Policy. 4l. Approve for filing planning commission meeting minutes of June 3, 2020. Councilmember Brausen requested that consent calendar item 4c be removed and placed on the regular agenda to 8d. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move consent calendar item 4c to the regular agenda as item 8d; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and commissions 5a. Appointment of representative to boards and commissions Councilmember Brausen stated Mr. Willette was a very strong candidate, who was not selected initially, but was now selected due to a vacancy on the environment and sustainability commission. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to appoint Andrew Willette to the environment and sustainability commission for the term ending on May 31, 2021. The motion passed 7-0. Mayor Spano thanked Mr. Willette for being willing to serve the in this capacity. 6. Public hearings 6a. Savans Inc., dba Texas Tonka Liquor off-sale intoxicating liquor license Ms. Solano presented the staff report. She noted the police completed the background checks and there were no issues, adding this is just an ownership change. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Harris asked about window coverage and to make sure this complies with the city’s ordinance. Mr. Harmening stated staff will look into this. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve application from Savans Inc dba Texas Tonka Liquor for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license located at 8242 Minnetonka Blvd. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Series 2020A General obligation bonds Resolution No. 20-135 Ms. Lammers presented the staff report. Ms. Lammers stated the city will levy tax dollars to pay the bonds and the city has a AAA rating with Standard and Poor’s, so great interest rates will be available because of this. Ms. Lammers stated the market is excellent right now with low interest rates at 1.2- 1.9% for the issuance. She noted the projects included are the Dakota Bridge, bike trails, pavement management, SWLRT, and utilities including the water fund for a total issuance of $15,540,000. The sale of the bonds will be completed on Oct. 26, 2020. Councilmember Brausen confirmed the bond sales are being made for funding already approved. Ms. Lammers stated yes, with the exception of $3 million in utility funds. Councilmember Brausen confirmed this will be going into the capital plan improvement and utility funds. Ms. Lammer stated yes. Councilmember Brausen stated the city is authorized to borrow up to $233,000,000 based upon established market value of the city at $8 billion. He continued the city will have only $42 million in debt with the proposed borrowing of the bonds. This will include projects like The ROC, Nature Center, fire stations, city hall improvement, work on roadways, new bridges, sidewalk, and bikeway. He also noted the city is using less than 20% of its borrowing capacity and will spread this out over time to impact tax payers for future years. Councilmember Brausen added the city is funding buildings and the transportation system through bonds, while keeping our debt to under 20% of bonding capacity, which is a testament to good city finances. Mayor Spano stated the city’s $2 million contribution for SWLRT was in exchange for grade separations at Beltline and Wooddale. He added these funds were combined match of another $2 million to become $4 million. He stated this total cost is a small fraction of what the full project might have cost otherwise at $15-20 million and noted the $575,000 in the report is part of this $2 million. Councilmember Rog stated she does not recall the last time the city bonded and what the amount was, but this seems like a lot. She noted $3 million will go for future projects around utilities and asked what a typical approach is to issue bonds. Mr. Harmening stated it can go both ways, adding spenddown requirements need to be met first, but City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 sometimes debt is issued when projects start and also in advance of a project, and this is a cost to issuing debt, so the attempt is to try to combine projects. He added bond issuance also relates to where the bond market is at during a particular time. He noted the city was planning on issuing debt, but when Covid hit, we decided to hold off until now. Councilmember Rog asked if the city is being pre-emptive with this amount and if this will potentially reduce the debt issued next time around. Mr. Harmening answered this is possible, and the council will need to look at the capital plan to decide if there are projects they want to hold off on and/or not do in the future. Councilmember Rog asked if franchise fees can be considered as a way to pay down debt going forward. Mr. Harmening stated debt service for this bond issue starts in 2022, and the council will need to adopt a preliminary tax levy for 2022. He continued if council looks at franchise fees as way to pay debt, there will be time to do that and it is permissible. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt Resolution No. 20-135, providing for the sale of general obligation bonds in the amount of approximately $15,540,000, and set Oct. 26, 2020 to review bids and awards bond sales. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. 2021 preliminary property tax levy certification Resolution 20-136 Ms. Lammers presented the staff report. She explained the property tax levy can be set now, and can then be moved down by council, but cannot go up. Councilmember Harris asked if the impact on the average home value of $287,000 is $37 per year or $3 per month. Ms. Lammers confirmed this is correct. Councilmember Harris asked about the fund balance related to infrastructure and for more details on that. Ms. Lammers noted the park fund, capital replacement fund, sidewalks and trails have cash deficits within those funds. Staff will be looking to council to correct those and put a plan in place to give council options on where to go with that. Councilmember Harris asked what the consequence are if the city does not build up fund balances. Ms. Lammers stated items would need to be cut back on and plan would need to be put into place to avoid negative deficits year after year. Councilmember Harris stated the 6.11% tax levy increase seems prudent in keeping fund balances positive. Ms. Lammers stated this is correct but can be discussed further. Councilmember Harris stated the staff cost of living increases would be 1% if there is a 4.5% levy and 2% if there is a 6.11% levy. She stated she appreciates staff, but noted she would agree with a 1% increase given the financial situation currently. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 Councilmember Kraft asked what last year’s levy increase was. Ms. Lammers stated it was at 5% and went down to 4.9%. Councilmember Kraft stated when this discussion began, council was at the 0-3% range, and now we are at 6.11%. He stated he understands the flexibility argument and that this level can only go down, but added messaging matters. He noted city residents will have this amount mailed to them and will interpret that in a recession it is ok to raise taxes more than in normal economic times. He stated he does not agree with this messaging unless there are good reasons, which he has not seen yet. He stated there are multiple crises right now including COVID, climate change, racial justice, and economic issues resulting from COVID. He stated the 6.11% does not consider the economic crisis people are facing. He added there is good work being done regarding the climate plan, but he has not seen the full plan yet. He noted he is fine asking citizens and businesses to pay more for the right reasons. He said he was willing to go to 4.5%, especially with the climate crisis investments, which would lower energy costs over time. He stated the 6.11% does not meet the bar for him. Councilmember Kraft stated he appreciates staff, but noted it would be reasonable and logical to ask staff to sacrifice a pay increase this year given the economic crisis we are in. He noted adding a fourth fire fighter means moving from 3% to 4.5% and while he appreciates the fund balances, comments so far have been vague. He stated he knows this is the first step in the process, but added it sends the wrong message and he is against the 6.11% increase and would be comfortable at 4.5%, especially knowing the investments in the climate plan would help reduce expenses. Councilmember Rog stated she feels similar to Councilmember Kraft and noted this is not the year to send out preliminary notices to residents that say local taxes may increase by 6.11%. She stated this is tone deaf, will alarm folks, and anger folks. She noted unemployment is at an all-time high, including in St. Louis Park, at least 30% are cost burdened by their housing, and 1 in 5 are seniors who are cost burdened due to property taxes and housing costs. She stated commercial property increases will be passed on to tenants, and the greatest impacts will be on lower value homes and will impact those with the lowest resources. This impact on a $240,000 home will be nearly $60 per year vs. the $37 per year we keep talking about for median home value, which impacts the least resourced persons we are trying to protect. She stated she received two emails from residents on this topic. One asked for a year off on paying property taxes during this crisis year. Another stated they are a senior watching their expenses go up every year, and every percentage increase is against the year before. She stated trust takes a long time to build, but a short time to lose and she urged the council to adopt a 4.5% preliminary levy to show sensitivity to folks, and that the council can be trusted. She stated it is critical to be in partnership with those the council represents, and she will vote against the 6.11% preliminary levy increase. Councilmember Mohamed agreed with points made by Councilmembers Rog and Kraft and stated even during a normal year, this would still be something she would push on but even more so this year. She stated she feels it is very insensitive to send this letter City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 8 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 now, adding she does not know a single person outside this group that has not had an economic decline this year. She added she cannot pick what needs to be cut, but she does see the need for the city to tighten its belt this year. She stated she understands the number can go down from here, but she will not agree with the 6.11% increase, and noted 4.5% is not as problematic, but she asked the council to show sensitivity at this time. She agreed many have said the city services are good in St. Louis Park, and folks will pay for them, but pointed out these folks are not the only ones living in the city, and some may get taxed out of the city. She stated she is totally against the 6.11% levy increase. Councilmember Brausen stated he will support the 6.11% preliminary levy increase because he believes in impacts more than imagery. He stated when looking at the percentage, it is a big jump from 4.5% but it is only $400,000-500,000 in tax revenue to be spread out over one year over an $8.2 billion base of property. Councilmember Brausen stated he does not want to govern from a position of fear, and being fearful about the future, so therefore we will cut programs we believe in and are supportive of. He added there will be demand on some emergency programs in the city that we will want to spend money on, and many will be impacted, but added not the vast majority who have houses, 55% of residents are home owners. He stated this will also affect commercial and industrial owners as well, so it is not exclusively homeowners bearing this impact. He stated staff has done well to provide this budget plan and thanked them for the high level of services that are provided. He stated some of the unions have already negotiated with staff a higher wage increase of 3% as well. He added he will support setting the preliminary tax levy increase at 6.11% and challenge staff to look for ways to save money adding, however, he does not want to cash strap staff either. Councilmember Mavity agreed with Councilmember Brausen adding she is hearing fear from council about what 6.11% means. She stated the complexity of the tax levy system shows and pointed out last year’s increase at 6% meant a $74 increase for the average home, but this year 6% means a $23 increase for the average home based on the staff report. She stated it is the same 6% increase each year, but a different impact. She stated by focusing on this percentage only instead of looking at what that means for each household, we are missing the point. Councilmember Mavity stated folks trust the council to understand the complexities of the tax system and to communicate to them. She stated there is a messaging challenge to communicate what these changes mean. But she noted the range at a 6% change per year is about $24 to $50 per year, and she does not believe this is too much to ask of residents, because the needs are great this year and this is not the time to step back. Councilmember Mavity continued everyone needs to work on addressing the city’s needs and in doing so, it is more robust as to what we can achieve. Our residents expect more and we can deliver more for them. She added there is not a single year where the council has not landed on a lesser amount for the tax levy, but if we start at a lesser amount, it will be more difficult to whittle it down, and staff will be constrained on what City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 9 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 they can offer back to council. She stated the council has a responsibility to ask our community to come together in these times. Mayor Spano stated he will support the 6.11% preliminary levy, knowing council will land at a lower percentage for a final number. He stated staff and council will need to sharpen their pencils to get there, and some funds are in need of long-term assistance, but added small course corrections should be done now vs. larger corrections later. He also pointed out while the city has reserves on hand for emergencies, staff would have to go into budget reserves to pay for items if the levy is too low. Mayor Spano added it will take 2-3 years to get the economy and employment back, so if the council does not make investments in the community this year, there will be lots of catch up year after year over time. He stated this is a good place to begin and will allow staff the flexibility to come back to council. Councilmember Harris stated she will support the 6.11% as well and urged the council not to focus on image but on outcomes, adding the 6.11% at maximum does change based on the value of a resident’s property, and it is a fair and sound investment. Councilmember Kraft asked about union wage increases noting there were negotiations with only one union and asked staff if there is only one union where a wage increase has been set this year, and if the one already approved in the consent agenda has already occurred. Mr. Harmening stated that is correct. Councilmember Kraft asked then if there is any pay increase overall yet for unions. Mr. Harmening stated staff has not yet begun negotiations with bargaining units so he has no information on that yet. Councilmember Kraft commented on Councilmember Mavity’s statement. He stated it is the council’s responsibility to know the details of the tax levy and agreed this is a serious responsibility. He noted the $23 average home increase Councilmember Mavity pointed out, but stated it is double that amount for homes on the lower range. He agreed it is the council’s responsibility to ask the community to come together but only for a good reason, adding it is the council’s responsibility to tighten belts. Councilmember Kraft noted the comments about fear, adding he does not see this as fear, but about sending the right message and being fiscally responsible. He added the fund balance issue and the fact that there is no data on how much will be necessary is more of a fear currently. Councilmember Kraft stated the council is not done with this, and it behooves the council to start from a lower tax increase amount to show we are willing to tighten our belts. He added when it’s broken down to monthly and daily levels it is easy to shift to higher amounts, but that approach over time yields significant dollars and he will not support this, noting it is more prudent to start at 4.5%. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 10 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 Councilmember Rog agreed with Councilmember Kraft adding she feels strongly about this, is saddened by this decision, and will not support the 6.11% increase. Mayor Spano encouraged folks to reach out to council members with their comments and concerns. Councilmember Brausen asked staff for data on the impact of the tax levy on the average apartment dweller, as well as additional data on impacts to residents and fund balances. He added nothing prohibits council from going below 4.5% if during discussions, councilmembers can present and convince their colleagues of items to delete from the budget. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 20-136, approving 2021 preliminary tax levy of 6.11% and setting budget public hearing dates as noted in the staff report for Dec. 6 and Dec. 21, 2020. The motion passed 4-3 (Councilmembers Rog, Kraft, and Mohamed opposed). 8c. 2021 preliminary HRA levy certification Resolution No. 20-137 Ms. Lammers presented the staff report. She noted the HRA levy is set at .0185% of market value. Councilmember Brausen stated these funds will go toward affordable housing, and he invited the community to tell the council what they think the fund should be spent on, related to housing. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 20-137, authorizing the 2021 preliminary HRA levy at .0185%. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Electing to participate in the local housing incentives account program and adopting the housing goals for 2021-2030 Resolution 20-126 Councilmember Brausen explained he pulled this item off the consent agenda for discussion. He wanted to acknowledge the city has participated in this program for 20 years, noting when he came on council in 2014, meetings were conducted with advocates and affordable housing goals were set. He added the city had a goal of 320 units of affordable housing, and with the help of Councilmember Mavity and Mayor Spano, developers were required to meet these goals and the city was successful. He added now there is a need at lower than 30% of median income and this is one of the reasons we are adding funds to the HRA levy housing trust fund. Councilmember Brausen pointed out this is no longer an affordable housing issue, adding it’s more of an income inequality issue now, and it will need to be figured out in the future. He challenged the council and the community to address this issue. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 11 Title: City council meeting minutes of Sept. 21, 2020 Councilmember Kraft asked if there is a way to track the city’s affordable housing goals and where the city is at so far. Mr. Harmening stated Ms. Barton is working on a dashboard to present this information, and link a comprehensive report to it, while making this information public and easily accessible. Councilmember Brausen stated not all communities reach their affordable housing goals, but St. Louis Park should be commended. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution 20-126, electing to participate in the local housing incentives account program and adopting the housing goals for 2021-2030. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Spano noted there was a community conversation around race in the Sorenson and Birchwood communities and asked how they went. He stated he applauds those neighborhoods for using grant money to fund this. Councilmember Rog stated that while she did not attend, she urged other neighborhoods to start thinking in those ways. She added Birchwood was not included in the conversation. Councilmember Harris stated the Minnehaha neighborhood was involved. Councilmember Harris stated on Oct. 6, 2020 the city is hosting a WebEx on Walker Lake zoning, led by staff planner Jennifer Monson. She stated there is more information on the city website. Councilmember Rog stated on Wed. at 6:30 p.m., there is a WebEx on the Beltline Blvd. bike and pedestrian trails and significant changes to support safer access to the Beltline station. She added there is more information on the city website also. Mr. Harmening stated next week’s council meeting will be moved to Tues., Sept. 29, 2020 as Mon. is Yom Kipper. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Recommended action: Motion to approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 36 of the City Code to allow accessory dwelling units and approve the summary ordinance for publication. Policy consideration: Should the city allow and regulate accessory dwelling units? Summary: The ordinance establishes regulations to allow accessory dwelling units. The ordinance is being considered because the 2040 comprehensive plan indicates ADUs will be allowed in the city. An ADU is a permanent, self-contained residential unit with its own living space, kitchen and bathroom. ADUs may be located inside the principal building or may be in a detached accessory building on the same parcel. A draft ordinance has been prepared which would allow ADUs on single-family properties which meet minimum standards. The ordinance establishes conditions intended to minimize impacts on surrounding properties such as limitations on size, height, and setbacks. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on the draft ordinance on September 16, 2020. No members of the public spoke at the public hearing. The planning commission unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance, including a requirement that the initial construction of an ADU be limited to a property that is occupied by the property owner as their legal residence. The city council approved the first reading of the ordinance on October 5, 2020. As part of the approval, the city council directed staff to make two changes. The first was reduce the minimum size of an accessory dwelling unit. The second was to allow for more flexibility for accessory buildings to match one of the roof pitches of the principal building. The attached ordinance incorporates those changes. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Ordinance Ordinance summary for publication Prepared by: Rita Trapp, consulting planner (HKGi) Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Discussion Background: The ordinance proposed would allow accessory dwelling units (ADU s) that meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code and minimum standards set forth in the ordinance . ADUs are proposed to be allowed in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts wherever a single -family home can be constructed. The ADU may be part of the principal building or it may be in a detached accessory building on the same property. The ordinance would allow one ADU per lot and establish minimum and maximum size requirements. The ordinance will regulate the location of ADUs similar to other structures on the site. Internal or attached ADUs will follow principal building height and yard regulations. Also, the ordinance will generally apply the same detached accessory structure standards to ADUs. This approach will integrate ADUs more seamlessly to the character of the existing neighborhoods, because the buildings will be similar in size and location as other structures that could be built under the city’s rules today. Two exceptions for detached ADUs are described below: 1)Require larger side and rear yards for a detached ADU than required for a detached garage. Currently, detached garages may be two feet from a side or rear property line. In order to have openings, such as doors and windows, ADUs will need to be five feet from a side or rear property line under the building code. 2)Planning commissioners thought that more space should be provided from a rear property line when it abuts another residential property, so a rear yard of 15 feet was recommended. Additional characteristics of ADUs regulated by the ordinance include limiting the number of individuals that can reside on a single-family property that includes an ADU; allowing ADUs without requiring more off-street parking; and prohibiting the individual sale or short-term vacation rental of an ADU. The ordinance also includes a provision that requires the property owner to reside on the property as their primary residence in order to initially build and establish an ADU; after the initial construction there will be no owner-occupancy requirement. City council held the first reading of the ordinance on October 5, 2020. The council voted to approve the first reading and directed staff to make two changes to the ordinance before the second reading. Present considerations: The city council wanted to provide more flexibility to property owners relative to the roof pitch required for accessory buildings. Currently, accessory buildings between 15 and 25 feet in height must match the primary roof pitch of the principal structure. After discussion, the city council directed staff to allow accessory buildings to match one of the roof pitches present on the principal structure. This change has been made in section 6. Also, the council directed staff to require ADUs to be greater than 200 square feet in size , instead of the 300 square feet minimum previously recommended. This change has been made to Section 9 of the ordinance. Next steps: City staff will publish the summary ordinance in the official newspaper. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the City Council has the strategic priority “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development,” and Whereas, the Housing Plan in Chapter 5 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the following strategies related to increasing the diversity of housing types: • Create a broad range of housing types to provide more diverse and creative housing choices to meet the needs of current and future residents. • Review existing policies, programs and regulations t o remove barriers to innovative and creative housing options. • Ensure new housing policies promote fair and equitable housing choices. • Allow for accessory housing units in all low -density residential areas. Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City Code: Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-4 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following text. Short-term rental means leasing a residential dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit for a term of less than one month. Section 2. Chapter 36, Article III General Provisions of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following text. Section 36-70. Short-term rental. No person shall offer for occupancy or enter into an agreement to allow a dwelling unit, or any other portion of their property, to be used as a short-term rental in a manor not otherwise permitted in the zoning district. Section 3. Chapter 36, Section 36-142 (a) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following text to the list of descriptions of residential uses. (9) Accessory dwelling unit means a dwelling unit complying with the Minnesota State Building Code; which is located within a principal single -family residential dwelling o r in an accessory structure to a single-family residential dwelling. The types of accessory dwelling unit include the following: a. An attached accessory dwelling unit is located within a principal residential dwelling. b. A detached accessory dwelling unit is located as a freestanding building on the same lot as the principal residential dwelling. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Section 4. Chapter 36, Section 36-162 (d) (4) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strikethrough text and add the following underlined text. e. Accessory buildings shall not be used for dwelling purposes shall also comply with the regulations set forth in Section 36-162 (e) regarding accessory dwelling units. Section 5. Chapter 36, Section 36-162 (d) (1) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strikethrough text and add the following underlined text. (a) Accessory buildings shall be erected or located within the back yard or side yard as defined in subsection (b) above, except that an accessory building designed and used as a garage may be located within a side yard unless it abuts a street. No aA ccessory buildings shall not be located in the front yard as defined in subsection (b) above. Section 6. Chapter 36, Section 36-162 (d)(3) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strikethrough text and add the following underlined text. a. Accessory buildings – Shall not exceed 15 feet in height. The maximum height may be increased to twenty four 24 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 a roof pitch of the principal building, and provided the wall height shall not exceed 9 feet from the floor to the top plate. Section 7. Chapter 36, Section 36-162 (d) (2) a. of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strikethrough text and add the following underlined text. a. 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 shall not exceed the smaller of 800 square feet or 25 percent of the back yard. This provision shall not prohibit the construction of either a detached garage or a detached accessory dwelling unit, or a combination thereof, that is no greater than 576 square feet in area provided there are no other accessory buildings. Section 8. Chapter 36, Section 36-162 (d) (5) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text. (5) Accessory buildings as part of the principal building – Accessory buildings located less than six feet from a principal building on the same lot, measured from the nearest projection of each building, shall be considered part of the principal building for the purpose of applying provisions of this chapter. Section 9. Chapter 36, Section 36-162. Restrictions and performance standards. of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough text and add the following underlined text and section breaks are indicated with “***”. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 5 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units (e) Accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units complying with all the following conditions: (1) Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted on single-family lots. (2) There shall be no more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit permitted per lot. (3) Occupancy of the single -family lot, including both the principal dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit, shall be limited to no more than one family and up to two persons who are boarders/roomers or reside in one of the dwelling units. (4) The initial construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall only occur on a property that is occupied by the property owner as their primary residence. (5) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently of the principal residential dwelling and may not be a separate tax parcel. (6) Accessory dwelling units that are attached to the principal dwelling unit shall be no more than 40% of the gross floor area of the single -family dwelling. (7) Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal residential structure shall comply with the regulations for accessory structures in Division 4 Residential District Regulations, and must comply with the following additional requirements: a. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any rear lot line unless the rear lot line is adjacent to an alley, in which case it may be located five (5) feet from the rear lot line. b. Detached accessory dwelling units shall have a floor area greater than 200 square feet . c. Balconies and decks above the ground floor shall not face an interior side yard or a rear yard not abutting an alley. Rooftop decks for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be allowed. (e)(f) Parking and storing of vehicles (1) Except as provided in subsections (e)(f)(2) and (e)(f)(8) of this section, no motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, commercial vehicle, or trailer shall be permitted to stand or park in any R district which exceeds any of the following: *** (2) One recreational vehicle which exceeds any of the limits set forth in subsection (e)(f)(1) of this section and is owned by the occupant of the premises can be parked in the back yard area if: City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 6 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units *** (3) The following provisions shall apply to the parking and storage of vehicles on residential parcels in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts: a. No more than three vehicles can be parked or stored outside an enclosed building at a single -family residence on a lot that contains a single -family residence. For a duple x , six vehicle s can be parked or stored outside. If there are more than three persons residing at a single -family dwelling, inclusive of an accessory dwelling unit or a boarder, who have valid state driver's licenses showing the residence address es on the lot, then the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside is increased to a number equal to the number of licensed drivers residing at the property not to e xce e d five vehicle s. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply during snow emergencies. b. No more than two non-passenger vehicles can be parked on a residential lot outside of an enclosed building. Except as permitted in subsection (e)(f)(2) of this section, vehicles shall be stored on a designated parking space. Non-passenger vehicles cannot be parked or stored in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street except as allowed under subsection (e)(f)(3)g of this section. c. Only commercial vehicles which do not exceed any of the size requirements under subsection (e)(f)(1) of this section and are designed exclusively for on -street use can be parked on residential lots outside an enclosed building. Commercial vehicles shall be parked only within a garage or on a designated parking space and cannot be parked or stored in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street except as permitted under subsection (e)(f) (3)g of this section. d. Except as permitted in subsection (e)(f)(2) of this section, all vehicles must be stored on a surface improved for driveway purposes with an approved paving surface. e. No more than one recreational vehicle which exceeds the size requirements in subsection (e)(f)(2) of this section can be parked on a residential lot outside an enclosed building. f. No non-passenger vehicle can be parked within five feet of an interior side lot line or rear lot line. g. No non-passenger vehicle can be parked within the front yard or within a side yard abutting a street except where designated parking space is permitted under subsection 36-361(k)(11). Unde r no circumstances can a non-passenger vehicle which exceeds the size limitations in subsection (e)(f)(1) of this section be parked in a front yard. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 7 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Section 10. Chapter 36, Section 36-162 (e) (3) a. of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough text and add the underlined text as follows. a. No more than three vehicles can be parked or stored outside an enclosed building at a single -family res idence on a lot that contains a single -family residence . For a duplex , six vehicle s can be parked or stored outside. If there are more than three pers ons residing at a single -family dwe lling, inclusive of an accessory dwelling unit or boarders/roomers, who have valid state driver's licenses showing the residence addresses on the lot, then the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside is increased to a number equal to the number of licensed drivers residing at the property not to ex cee d five vehicles. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply during snow emergencies. Section 11. Chapter 36, Section 36-163. R -1 single -family residence district (e) Accessory Uses of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following text: (16) Accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Section 36-162 (e) and which is not used for short-term rental purposes. Section 12. Chapter 36, Section 36-164. R -2 single -family residence district (e) Accessory Uses of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following text: (15) Accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Section 36-162 (e) and which is not used for short-term rental purposes. Section 13. Chapter 36, Section 36-165. R -3 two -family residence district (e) Accessory Uses of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following text: (16) Accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Section 36-162 (e) and which is not used for short-term rental purposes. Section 14. Chapter 36, Table 36-361 (a) Off -Street Parking Areas of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strikethrough text and add the following underlined text and section breaks are indicated with “***”: Use Number of Parking Spaces Residential Single family dwelling Two spaces per dwelling unit. Additional spaces are not required for a boarder or an accessory dwelling unit. One additional space is required if boarders are accommodated. *** Two family Two spaces per dwelling unit. Additional spaces are not required for boarders/roomers or an accessory dwelling unit. One additional space is required if boarders are accommodated. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 8 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Section 15. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First Reading October 5, 2020 Second Reading October 19, 2020 Date of Publication October 22, 2020 Date Ordinance takes effect November 6, 2020 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 9 Title: Second reading of ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units Summary for publication Ordinance No. ____-20 An ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units This ordinance amends Section 36 of the City of St. Louis Park zoning code to allow accessory dwelling units on single -family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2020 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 29, 2020 Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to painted signs Recommended action: Motion to approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 36-362 pertaining to painted signs and approve summary ordinance for publication. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Section 36-362 to allow signs to be painted directly on buildings? This ordinance is number 12 on the council’s list of priority discussion topics. Summary: Staff prepared the ordinance at the request of city council to consider allowing signs to be painted directly onto buildings. A report on this item was submitted to the council on September 14, 2020. The council approved the first reading on October 5, 2020. The planning commission discussed the ordinance in a study session on September 2, 2020 and conducted a public hearing on September 16, 2020. No comments were received from the public, and planning commission recommended the council approve it. Background: The purpose of the sign code is to establish standards for the size, placement and maintenance of signs. It is also intended to permit a safe, efficient, effective and aesthetic means of communication which recognizes the need to maintain an attractive and appealing appearance of property and community. Present considerations: Attached is a copy of a proposed sign ordinance. In summary, the ordinance proposes: 1. Section 36-362(d)(3) requiring a permit for supergraphics. A supergraphic is a mural or other depiction that does not include advertising. 2. Section 36-362(e)(9) removing painted signs from the list of prohibited signs. This change allows businesses to begin painting signs directly on their buildings. Painted signs will be regulated in the same manner as wall signs, which includes size, area and lighting. 3. Section 36-362(f)(16) requiring the building surface to be refinished to match the surrounding surface. When the painted sign is removed the portion of the wall where the sign existed must be refinished to match the surrounding wall surface. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Ordinance Summary ordinance for publication Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to painted signs Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance regarding painted signs The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (Case No. 20-18-ZA) for amending the zoning ordinance Section 36-362. Section 2. Chapter 36, Section 362 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding underscored text and deleting the strike through text. Section breaks are represented by ***. Sec. 36-362. Sign regulations. *** (d) Exempt signs. The following signs are exempt from the provisions of this section: *** (3) Supergraphics., except that a permit shall be required. *** (e) Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited in all use districts: *** (9) Signs painted directly on a building. (109) Signs mounted on chimneys, rooftop equipment, observation towers, flagpoles, cooling towers, elevator penthouses, commercial antennas, communication towers, belfries, church spires and cupolas. (110) Signs, including the sign structure or any other component of the sign, that rotate, revolve, scroll, move, flash, blink, fade, o r are animated. (f) General provisions. Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted accessory use in all use districts: *** (16) Removal of painted signs. Any structure from which a painted sign is removed shall be repainted, sandblaste d or treated in a manner which makes the former sign not visible. The surface from which the sign was removed, shall be refinished in a manner to match the surrounding surface. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to painted signs Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect November 13, 2020 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading October 5, 2020 Second reading October 19, 2020 Date of publication October 29, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect November 13, 2020 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to painted signs Ordinance No. ____-20 An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance relating to painted signs This ordinance amends Section 36-362 of the City of St. Louis Park zoning code relating to painted signs. It allows signs to be painted directly onto a building, requires permits for murals and requires maintenance standards. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2020 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. P ublished in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 29, 2020 Summary for publication Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials Recommended action: Motion to approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 36-366 pertaining to architectural design and approve summary ordinance for publication. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Section 36-366 to modify the list of exterior materials approved for use in St. Louis Park ? Summary: The council approved the first reading on October 5, 2020. The planning commission discussed the ordinance in a study session on September 2, 2020 and conducted a public hearing on September 16, 2020. No comments were received from the public, and planning commission recommended the council approve it. Background: Section 36-366 of the city code regulates architectural design of buildings in St. Louis Park. The purpose of the architectural design standards is to promote a high standard of development in the city that is consistent with the comprehensive plan, preserves the character of the city, and reduces the adverse impacts resulting from dissimilar land uses. Among the ways to help accomplish this, the zoning code regulates building design and materials. Present considerations: Below is a summary of the changes proposed in the attached ordinance : 1. The existing ordinance includes a list of materials allowed to be used on building exteriors. The list is divided into three categories. Class 1 materials must cover at least 60% of each building elevation. Class 2 may cover up to 40% of each elevation. Class 3 may cover up to 10% of each elevation. A complete list of the materials can be viewed in the attached draft ordinance. The proposed ordinance amends the list of materials . 2. The existing ordinance includes a provision that allows an applicant to appeal staff’s interpretation of the architectural ordinance to the city council. Staff proposes to amend the appeal process to allow the board of zoning appeals to review staff’s determination or interpretation using the same process followed for an appeal of any other zoning interpretation or determination. This request would be heard by the BOZA, whose decision would be final, unless it is appealed to the city council. 3. The proposed ordinance also includes some clarifications. Financial or budget considerations: None . Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Ordinance Summary ordinance for publication Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance regarding architectural design The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (Case No. 20-17-ZA) for amending the zoning ordinance Section 36-366. Section 2. Chapter 36, Section 366 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding underscored text and deleting the strike through text. Section breaks are represented by ***. *** (b) Standards. (b)(1) Building Design. Buildings shall be designed to enhance the attractiveness of the city’s streetscape by minimizing monotonous structures and long, blank walls. Additionally, buildings shall, through use of architectural details and scale, have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest from the perspective of the pedestrian. The following techniques shall be incorporated into building design in order to accomplish such requirements. (1)a. Architectural design elements that will be considered in the review of building and site plans include building materials, color and texture, building bulk, general massing, roof treatment, proportion of openings, facade design elements and variation, window and openings. Site plan design elements that will be considered in the determination as to whether site plan design is superior include quantity, quality, variation, compatibility and size of plant materials, landscape berms and screening walls. Also considered will be the overall order, symmetry and proportion of the various elements within the site and within the larger context of the area or corridor. (2)b. The height, bulk, general massing, roof treatment, materials, colors, textures, major divisions, and proportions of a new or remodeled building shall be compatible with that of other buildings on the site and on adjacent sites. (3)c. Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to wall height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall deviation at the 2:1 ratio shall be two feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to three feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to four feet. The building wall deviations must extend from the grade to the roof, or top of the parapet. (4)d. No building may display more than five percent of any elevation surface in bright, pure accent colors. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials (5)e. The development must locate the noise -producing portions of the development, such as loading docks, outside storage and outside activity away from adjacent residential areas. f. All exterior finishes for one - and two-family dwellings and accessory structures shall be installed within one year from the issuance of the building permit. (6)g. All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other principal buildings. All new multiple -family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50 percent of another principal building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year. This section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use district, two or more buildings on the same lot in the a MXixed Use zoning district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible. (7)h. Interior an d exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether permanently or temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or more than ten percent of any individual window or contiguous window area. (8) Ground floor transparency. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades in the C-1, C -2, and MX Districts, and retail, service, and restaurant uses in O and BP Districts: a. Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window and door area. b. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three (3) feet. Display of merchandise is allowed within this three (3) feet. c. Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. d. No more than 10 percent of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90 percent of window and door area shall be highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum 60 percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. e. For all new buildings constructed after January 1, 2019, and existing buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building by more than 50 percent, the minimum ground floor transparency shall be 50 percent on the front façade, and 20 percent on all other ground floor street facing facades. f. The city acknowledges a degree of flexibility may be necessary to adjust to unique situations. Alternatives that provide an increase in pedestrian vibrancy and street safety including but not limited to public art and pedestrian scale amenities may be considered and may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless the development application requires approval by city council, in which case the city council shall approve the alternate transparency plan. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials (c)(2) Building Materials. Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the adopted building code and the manufacturer’s specifications and shall be subject to the regulations listed below. following regulations: Products listed as “integral colored” shall continue its surface color consistently through the depth of the product as opposed to being colored, painted or stained on the surface only. (1)a. Classes of materials. Materials shall be divided into class I, class II and class III categories as follows: i. Class I. Brick, marble, granite or other natural stone, textured cement stucco, copper, porcelain and glass are class I exterior building materials on buildings other than those used as dwellings which contain four or fewer dwelling units. Wood, vinyl siding, fiber- reinforced cement board and prefinished metal are class I materials on residential buildings containing four or fewer dwelling units in addition to the other class I materials listed in this subsection. Wood is a class I material on park buildings under 3,000 square feet. Clear acrylic that is high impact, double-skinned, non-yellowing, and a minimum of eight (8) millimeters thick may be classified as a Class I material for greenhouses. If a minimum of two other Class I materials are in use, clapboard and shake -style fiber-reinforced cement board with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch may be used as a Class I material for up to 10 percent of the façade on residential buildings with more than four (4) units. “Smooth” finish fiber-reinforced cement board is not permitted as a Class I material. a. Class I. The following materials are considered class1 materials as specified: 1. Brick 2. Marble, granite or other natural stone 3. Integral colored cast stone (the stone is colored consistently through 4. Textured cement stucco 5. Architectural wall cladding (Nichiha, Equitone and similar brands) Material must be through colored and at least 5/8 inches thick. 6. Copper 7. Porcelain 8. Glass 9. Residential buildings containing four or fewer dwelling units may utilize the following additional materials: i. Wood ii. Vinyl siding iii. Fiber-reinforced cement board iiv. Prefinished metal 10. Residential bu ildings containing five or more dwelling units may utilize the following additional materials: i. Up to 10% of the required class 1 materials may be finished with clapboard and/or shake-style fiber-reinforced cement board with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch. 11. Park buildings under 3,000 square feet may utilize the following additional materials: i. Wood. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials ii. Class II. Exposed aggregate concrete panels, burnished concrete block, integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block, cast-in -place concrete, artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit), artificial stone, fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch, and prefinished metal. b. Class II. The following materials are considered class II materials as spe cified: 1. Exposed aggregate concrete panels 2. Burnished concrete block 3. Integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block 4. Cast-in -place concrete 5. Insulated exterior wall panels (E.I.F.S., Drivit and similar brands) 6. Fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch 7. Prefinished metal. 8. Integral colored concrete panels other than smooth finished. iii. Class III. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored), unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels, and unfinished or surface painted metal. c. Class III. The following materials are considered class III materials as specified: 1. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored) 2. Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels 3. Unfinished or surface painted metal 4. Smooth finished concrete panels 5. Brick, stone, or integral colored material which has be en painted (2)b. Minimum class I materials. At least 60 percent of each building face visible from off the site must be of class I materials except as permitted by subsection (b)(6)c (d)(4)c. of this section. Not more than 10 percent of each building face visible from off the site may be of class III materials. Portions of buildings not visible from off the site may be constructed of greater percentages of class II or class III materials if the structure otherwise conforms to all city ordinances. The mixture of building materials must be compatible and integrated. (3)c. Buildings in I-G and I-P districts. a.i. Not on major streets and not near residential. For buildings in the I-G and I-P districts which are not located on a principal arterial, minor arterial, major collector, or adjacent to or across from any residentially zoned property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to a class I material as certified by the architect or manufacturer. b.ii. On major streets or near residential. For building walls in the I-G and I-P districts facing on a principal arterial, minor arterial or major collector, or adjacent to or across from any residentially -zoned property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to a class I material as certified by the architect or City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 6 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials manufacturer and that the architectural design and site plan are superior quality as determined by the zoning administrator. The architecture and site plan shall meet the following minimum criteria to be considered superior quality: 1. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet. 2. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20 percent or the size of 20 percent of the overstory trees installed shall be increased to 3 1/2 caliper inches. 3. A minimum of ten percent of the building facade must be windows or glass spandrels. (3) Ground floor transparency. a. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades in the C-1, C -2, and MX Districts , and retail, service, and restaurant uses in O and BP Districts: i. Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window and door area. ii. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three (3) feet. Display of merchandise is allowed within this three (3) feet. iii. Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. iv. No more than 10 percent of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90 percent of window and door area shall be highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum 60 percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. v. For all new buildings constructed after January 1, 2019, and existing buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building by more than 50 percent, the minimum ground floor transparency shall be 50 percent on the front façade, and 20 percent on all other ground floor street facing facades. vi. The city acknowledges a degree of flexibility may be necessary to adjust to unique situations. Alternatives that provide an increase in pedestrian vibrancy and street safety including but not limited to public art and pedestrian scale amenities may be considered and may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless the development application requires approval by city council, in which case the city council shall approve the alternate transparency plan. (d) General provisions. (1) All exterior finishes for one - and two-family dwellings and accessory structures shall be installed within one year from the issuance of the building permit. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 7 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials (2)(4)Additions and accessory structures. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, exterior alterations, and new accessory buildings shall address and respect the original architectural design and general appearance of the principal buildings on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section. Clear acrylic that is high impact, double -skinned, non-yellowing, and a minimum e ight (8) millimeter thick may be classified as a Class I material for accessory greenhouses. (3)(5)Screening. a. The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods. Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible from the ground within 400 feet from property in an R district, only the items listed in subsections 1 and 2 shall be used. 1.i. A parapet wall. 2.ii. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop e quipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building. 3.iii. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is most effective. b. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse and recycling handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening. c. All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter. (4)(6)Parking ramps. All new parking ramps shall meet the following design standards: a. Parking ramp facades that are visible from off the site shall display an integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors with the principal building. b. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades. c. If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right-of-way or recreational trail, the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings. (5)(7)Awnings and canopies. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 8 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials a. Design parameters. Awnings and canopies shall be designed, installed and maintained to meet the following criteria: 1.i. Awnings and canopies shall have noncombustible frames. If an awning can be collapsed, retracted or folded, the design shall be such that the awning does not block any required exit. 2.ii. Awnings and canopies less than 25 feet in width may extend into the public right-of-way up to two feet from the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally. 3.iii. All portions of any awning and canopy shall provide at least eight feet of clearance over any walkway and twelve feet of clearance over a driveway or private roadway. 4.iv. Canopy posts or other supports located within a public right-of-way or easement shall be placed in a location approved by the city engineer. b. Permit required. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any awning or canopy. In addition to the building permit, an encroachment agreement shall be issued by the city engineer prior to the installation of any awning or canopy that extends into, upon or over any street or alley right-of- way, park or other public property. The encroachment agreement shall include provisions that hold the owner of the awning or canopy liable to the city for any damage which may result to any person or property by reason of such encroachment or the removal of such encroachment. Additional conditions may be imposed on encroachment permits to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to protect nearby property owners from hardship or damage or to protect other public interests as determined by the city engineer. c. Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to the installation of an awning or canopy. 1.i. Application form and fee. A separate fee shall be required for the building permit and encroachment agreement. 2.ii. Dimensioned and scaled site plan and building elevations. 3.iii. Four sets of drawings for each awning or canopy proposed. d. Projections to be safe. All such projections over public property shall be structurally safe, shall be kept in a safe condition and state of repair consistent with the design thereof and repaired when necessary in the opinion of the city engineer or building official by and at the expense of the person having ownership or control of the building from which they project. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 9 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials e. Removal upon order. The owner of an awning or canopy, any part of which projects into, upon, over or under any public property shall upon being ordered to do so by the city engineer remove at once any part or all of such encroachment and shall restore the right-of -way to a safe condition. Such removal and restoration of the right-of -way will be at the sole expense of the property owner. The city may, upon failure of the property owner to remove the encroachment as ordered, remove the encroachment, and the reasonable costs of removing such encroachment incurred by the city shall be billed and levied against the property as a special assessment. (e)(e) Appeal. In any instance where the zoning administrator denies a permit or a request for preliminary approval of building materials or building design, the applicant may submit an appeal to the interpretation, based upon the plans and other papers on file in the office of the zoning administrator, to the city council without payment of additional filing fees of any kind. (1) Permit. A permit for an appeal shall be filed as required by Section 36-30. (2) Process. A request for an appeal will be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals as outlined in this chapter. The city council will act as the board of zoning appeals for appeals made in conjunction with a conditional use permit or planned unit development. The planning commission shall hold the public hearing on the appeal, review the appeal along with the conditional use permit or planned unit development, and report its findings and recommendation to the city council. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect November 13, 2020 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading October 5, 2020 Second reading October 19, 2020 Date of publication October 29, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect November 13, 2020 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 10 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to architectural materials Summary for publication Ordinance No. ____-20 An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance relating to architectural design This ordinance amends Section 36-366 of the City of St. Louis Park zoning code relating to architectural design . It amends the list of exterior materials permitted on buildings, amends the appeal process and includes clarifications. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2020 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 29, 2020 Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Special assessment – water service line repair at 2915 Huntington Avenue South Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 2915 Huntington Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 31-029-24-44-0023. Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the city council. Summary: Earl Hipp and Gwen Barker, owners of the single -family residence at 2915 Huntington Avenue South, have requested the city authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy. The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the city to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $2,800.00. Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Emily Carr, assessing technician Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Special assessment – water service line repair at 2915 Huntington Avenue South Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 2915 Huntington Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 31-029-24-44-0023 Whereas, the property owners at 2915 Huntington Avenue South, have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single family residence located at 2915 Huntington Avenue South; and Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the water service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,800.00. 4. The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 3.50%. 6. The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 735 – Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave. at 35th St . Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing yield signs on Alabama Avenue at 35th St reet. Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. The request was considered as against the city’s traffic control policy. Summary: Staff received a request to evaluate traffic controls at the intersection of Alabama Avenue and 35th Street in May 2020. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop or yield signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have signs installed. The yield sign criterion for traffic volume was met for this intersection. The criteria for crash history and sightlines were not met. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 meeting and recommended the installation of yield signs on the north and south approaches. Two letters were sent out to the surrounding area (144 in total), looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. 8 total comments were received with varying levels of support and other suggestions. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $300 and will come out of the general operating budget. Yield signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Map Resolution Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 735 – Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave. at 35th St. Discussion Background: Staff received a request to evaluate traffic controls at the intersection of Alabama Avenue and 35th Street in May 2020. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of traffic control signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have traffic controls installed. The yield sign criteria for crash history and sightlines were not met for this intersection. However, the criterion for traffic volume was met. Yield signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs don’t slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Meaning, stop or yield signs are not an effective traffic calming measure to decrease overall vehicle speeds on a street segment. Compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. Places, where people have a false sense of security (an assumption that vehicles will stop or yield) and vehicles don’t stop or yield, are a safety hazard. Due to these potential impacts, the city takes traffic control requests seriously and completes a thorough review of the intersection, using established industry standards to develop recommendations. Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee workgroup made up of the engineering, operations, police, and community development departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes recommendations on possible ch anges. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 committee meeting and recommended installing yield signs on the north and south approaches. Alabama Ave nue at 35th St reet is a four-way intersection with no existing traffic controls. Stop or yield signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than 3 approaches and where one of the following conditions exist. In this case, one of the conditions was met. • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 a day. Result: According to a GPS analysis, more than 2,000 people enter the intersection a day. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three -year period. Result: Crash history showed no reported accidents within the last three years that could have been prevented by the installation of a yield or stop sign. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were observed to allow road users the ability to adequately apply the normal right of way rule when stopping or yielding from all approaches. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 735 – Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave. at 35th St. Community feedback: In July 2020, a letter was sent to the surrounding area (144 addresses) asking for comments and feedback on the recommended sign installation. Staff received 7 comments from community members: • “Yes yield signs would be good for this intersection because the sight lines can be obstructed by the parked cars” – Wade Metsa, 5924 W 35th St, Apt L • “I just wanted to write in support of adding yield signs on the north and south approach of Alabama Ave and 35th Street. I was initially surprised to hear that there were no signs at this intersection (I had assumed there were stop signs already there), but based on the analysis provided by mail, adding yield signs seems appropriate. Thanks for keeping the community in the loop with the written communication”. – Dalton Boettcher, 3464 Zarthan Ave • “While a stop sign is encouraged, I would recommend a stop sign at this intersection. This I think would be the most realistic approach, however I believe either sign would be unnecessary if there were some speed controls implemented on 35th St. where I frequently witness cars exceeding speed limits”. – John Zimmerman, 5920 Hamilton St • “After living here for two months and seeing the traffic flow – I would recommend a STOP sign on the North side and a YIELD sign on the South. There are YIELD signs several blocks away and from my experience, they are not being properly obeyed. I believe that a YIELD sign would be more dangerous on the North side than a STOP sign at this particular intersection – either way as making sure it is visible and unobstructed”. – Daniel Garrison, 5918 W 35th St, Apt A • “I’ve been a resident in one of the apartment buildings at this intersection for 5 years. I have never had or even seen an issue in this intersection and do not believe these signs are necessary. Most people leave the parking lot in a safe and cautious manner, watching for cross traf fic. People turning from Alabama onto 35th also slow down and are cautious. I know for myself, that it's also easy to see people approaching the intersection from Alabama when on 35th St and have never had any concerns that people are not being mindful and watching for others. “Based on the control study done and provided in this letter, this intersection only meets the criteria for a YIELD sign based on 1 out of 3 criteria. This criterion is the volume of approaches. It's not due to any accidents or obstructed sight lines. There are 4 small apartment buildings in this immediate area. Therefore, I feel there is a higher volume of cars and pedestrians as we are all coming and going. However, I have never had nor seen any safety concerns. I feel that everyone is cautious and recognizes the amount of people coming and going from this area and take their time. “I feel that in this particular intersection, people are mindful about cross traffic and I have never had a concern for my safety. I do not feel these signs are necessary”. – Alison Meinert City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Title: Traffic Study 735 – Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave. at 35th St. •“I live in one of the apartment buildings at this intersection. I think the proposed yield signs are a great idea and stop signs in the same spot may be even better. “However, the street parking at this intersection is very important for apartment dwellers, and some of it is considered exempt from the first 24 hours of a snow emergency. If putting traffic control signs in these areas will affect street parking, I wouldn’t support it because our options are already very limited in the winter, and I have even been incorrectly ticketed and towed here (the city did reimburse me). “As long as street parking isn’t affected, I think the yield signs would improve the intersection”. – Kathy H •Call summary: Yield signs are not necessary because pe ople stop anyways to make sure nobody is coming. You can make a better use of that money elsewhere in the city. – Glenn Eckstrom, 6001 Hamilton St In October 2020, a second letter (144 addresses) was sent out informing people that this item was to appear in front of the city council. The letter again asked for additional comments and feedback. One comment was received. •Call summary: Yield signs are not necessary, and the city should spend their money elsewhere. There is not much traffic that moves through the intersection and folks slow down to cross anyways. – Glenn Eckstrom, 6001 Hamilton St TS 735 location map WOODDALE AVE WOODD A L E AVE TO WB HWY 7 WOODD A L E A V E TOEB H W Y 7 WOODDALEAVE TOWB HWY 735TH ST W HIGHW A Y 7ALABAMA AVE SHIGHW A Y 7 WB HWY 7 T O W O O D D A L E A V E 6005 6019 6010 5915 5925 5912 3463 3459 6018 6015 5921 6009 60006012 3464 5924 6025 60056017 6024 5909 6001 5918 0 100 20050 Feet Legend Property lines Proposed yield signs City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: Traffic Study 735 – Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave. at 35th St.Page 5 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 6 Title: Traffic Study 735 – Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave. at 35th St. Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize yield signs on Alabama Ave at 35th St Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the intersection of Alabama Ave at 35th St; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of yield signs on the north and south approaches of Alabama Ave at 35th St; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install yield signs on the north and south approaches of Alabama Ave at 35th St. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St. Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing stop signs on Hampshire Avenue at 33rd Street. Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. The request was considered against the city’s traffic control policy. Summary: Staff received a request to evaluate traffic controls at the intersection of Hampshire Avenue and 33rd Street in September 2019. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop or yield signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have signs installed. The stop sign criterion for traffic volume was met for this intersection. The criteria for crash history and sightlines were not met. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 meeting and recommended the installation of stop signs on all approaches. Two letters were sent out to the surrounding area (128 in total), looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. 14 total comments were received mostly in favor of the recommendation. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $300 and will come out of the general operating budget. Stop signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Map Resolution 97-01 New resolution Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St. Discussion Background: Staff received a request to evaluate traffic controls at the intersection of Hampshire Avenue and 33rd Street in September 2019. Due to winter conditions, traffic requests received in late fall are not evaluated until May of the next year. Also, due to COVID- 19, the stay at home order this spring meant that traffic volumes were lower this year. As a result, there was a delay in evaluating these requests. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of traffic control signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have traffic controls installed. The stop sign criteria for crash history and sightlines were not met for this intersection. However, the criterion for traffic volume was met. Stop signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs don’t slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Meaning, stop or yield signs are not an effective traffic calming measure to decrease overall vehicle speeds on a street segment. Compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. Places, where people have a false sense of security (an assumption that vehicles will stop or yield) and vehicles don’t stop or yield, are a safety hazard. Due to these potential impacts, the city takes traffic control requests seriously and completes a thorough review of the intersection, using established industry standards to develop recommendations. Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee workgroup made up of the engineering, operations, police, and community development departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes recommendations on possible changes. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 committee meeting and recommended installing a stop sign on the north approach. Hampshire Avenue at 33rd Street is a T-intersection with existing stop signs on the east and west approaches. Stop or yield signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has 3 or more approaches and where one of the following conditions exist. In this case, one of the conditions was met. • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 a day. Result: According to a GPS analysis, more than 2,000 people enter the intersection a day. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three -year period Result: Crash history showed no reported accidents within the last three years that could have been prevented by the installation of a yield or stop sign. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were observed to allow road users the ability to adequately apply the normal right of way rule when stopping or yielding from all approaches. Community feedback: In July 2020, a letter was sent to the surrounding area (128 addresses) asking for comments and feedback on the recommended sign installation. Staff received 14 comments from community members: • “I don't feel that adding a stop or yield sign at the end of Hampshire will solve any of the issues I see at this intersection. Cars coming down Hampshire tend to slow down as they need to turn right or left so they are not turning at high speeds. The issue is that the cars that are driving on 33rd street rarely fully stop. I may not be as concerned about this as cars do slow down, but since there is a playground at this corner it causes some concern. I'm not sure of the solution for this, but it feels that time, money, and effort would be better well spent on focusing on getting people to stop at the existing stop signs. Adding another stop sign won't actually help people stop at this intersection”. – Elizabeth Davis, 3220 Hampshire Ave • “I wanted to reach out to share with you that I oppose the additional stop sign on Hampshire. Although traffic volumes may support the sign, overall safety of the intersection does not seem to be affected. This change strikes me as superfluous”. – Mike Foster, 3313 Library Ln • “I don't think a stop sign is necessary at Hampshire Avenue and 33rd Street. I suggest signage that would say something like: yield to pedestrians in crosswalk”. – Shirley Wiese, 3213 Idaho Ave • “I think a stop sign at this location is a great idea. I’ve lived here for a long time and even I sometimes forget to notice that it’s only a 2-way stop. Being near the high school there are tons of relatively new drivers in the area during the school day. Due to slower rates of speed (presumably!) there is probably low risk of fatalities or even injuries at this intersection, but I still think making it a 3-way stop would be helpful. I always thought it was strange there wasn’t a stop sign there. The cars going south on Hampshire have to slow way down anyway to make a turn so it’s no big deal”. – Patty Bongaarts, 3324 Idaho Ave • “…I am very much in favor of putting in another stop sign at 33rd and Hampshire. People drive way too fast on that corner. “On a separate note, how would the city determine if a speed bump would go in? High schoolers come racing out of the parking lot and drive WAY too fast almost every day that school is in session. It’s dangerous, as many of them are not paying a lot of attention. I’m just curious”. – Korine Carlson, 3248 Georgia Ave • “I have lived half a block from the proposed stop sign location for about 14 years and I have always believed it would be safer for both pedestrians and drivers to have a stop City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St. sign here. I have witnessed countless close calls. With a playground located right there I think it will make it safer for kids and families crossing the street to access or return from the park. I not only support the stop sign in this location but I’m very excited about it and hunk it is overdue”. – Jessica Curtis, 3221 Hampshire Ave • “…I do support that proposal as well”. – Sara Deis, • “I am writing to support the recommended stop sign installation. It is a common intersection that we see people confuse and is a dangerous location next to the park. This is a common walkway for children wanting to make their way to the park. A stop sign is necessary and invited by our family. Ideally there are additional stop signs on 33rd street as it is a common street that highschoolers go too fast, endangering the families and children at the park”. – Chris Femling, 3249 Hampshire Ave • “As an interested nearby resident, I would strongly encourage a stop sign on Hampshire Ave at 33rd St. I have a number of reasons why I think a stop sign would be beneficial. 1. “33rd St seems to be the main through-road at this intersection, so it doesn't make sense to have stop signs along 33rd St, while having no control on Hampshire Ave, which seems to be a smaller, less busy road. Hampshire Ave should have the same or more stringent traffic control than that of 33rd St. Therefore, installing a stop sign on Hampshire Ave at 33rd St makes sense. 2. “An all-way stop would be simple for all people to understand. No guessing if one way is uncontrolled, or yielding. 3. “All the other intersections along this segment of 33rd St have stop signs on the state name cross roads, except Hampshire Ave. 4. “The other intersection with stop signs on 33rd St is an all-way stop at Florida Ave. People traveling along 33rd St may overlook the uncontrolled traffic approaching Hampshire Ave at 33rd St because they assume it is similarly an all-way stop. 5. “After living nearby over a year and taking this route multiple times a week, one time my wife forgot the vehicle approaching 33rd St from Hampshire Ave didn't have a stop sign, and she almost got in an accident by turning from 33rd St in front of the approaching vehicle. Luckily the approaching vehicle was able to speed past her and honk their horn to remind her who has the right-of-way. 6. “The current intersection is dangerous for both local residents and also drivers unfamiliar to the area because it doesn't match the other traffic control conditions alon g 33rd St. 7. “While there have been no recorded accidents in the last 3 years that could've been prevented by yield or stop sign, this is a rare occurrence event, and a small sample size could make it seem safer than what it really is. It would be much better to install a stop sign to prevent a future accident rather than wait for an accident to happen, and then install a stop sign after it is too late. 8. “While a yield sign meets the conditions of the study results, that would only continue the same confusion that is met at the current intersection. What are they yielding to? someone at a stop sign? Who has the right of way then? I took transportation engineering classes in college, and I don't even know that answer. A stop sign will cost the same to install as a yield sign, but it will be much simpler, City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 5 Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St. more logical and effective in making this a safer intersection ”. – Justice Harvieux, 3281 Library Ln • “I am in favor in creating an all-way stop at this intersection. It's adjacency to the school and park will help more consistently slow down traffic for safety”. – Dulcey Heller, 3212 Georgia Ave • “I am emailing to state my SUPPORT of the recommended changes of installing a STOP sign on the north approach of Hampshire Avenue S at 33rd Street. In the last month or so, I’ve witnessed (just from my front yard) about three instances where there has been honking or screeching tires at that intersection. Additionally, I’d like to inquire about if a crosswalk could be added at that same intersection, parallel to the current crosswalk (going across 33rd Street)”. – Anna Kelly • “Putting in a stop sign at the end of Hampshire would be awesome! I agree with Ryan’s email be low. Hampshire can get pretty busy with pedestrians and drivers so it would be nice to have controlled stops around those crossings. Also, I have seen many “all most accidents “ because people who aren’t familiar with the area don’t know that it isn’t a 3 way stop and will go thinking you are going to stop”. – Karyn Libson, 3229 Hampshire Ave • “How many other intersections in St. Louis Park have uncontrolled traffic flow that terminates in a hockey warming house and or park jungle gym? In addition to the ch ance or a person losing control of their vehicle and driving into the park or warming house you also have a kid magnet playground. Children who are learning how to safely learn to cross roadways and might not be well versed in looking back for additional traffic are walking to and from the park during the summer and winter. This one's a no- brainer. Put in the stop sign”. – Ryan Libson, 3229 Hampshire Ave • “I’m for the city putting in a stop sign. It makes sense to me because of the children that race acros s the street to the park”. – Kathy Shapiro, 3304 Library Ln In October 2020, a second letter (144 addresses) was sent out informing people that this item was to appear in front of the city council. The letter again asked for additional comments and feedback. No comments were received. Resolution: The existing stop signs on the east and west approaches of this intersection were installed in 1997 under Resolution 97-01. The proposed resolution rescinds this resolution so that all intersection traffic controls remain in the same place administratively. TS 736 location map 33RD ST W IDAHOAVES 2ND S T N W HAMPSHIRE AVE S3233 3245 3253 3244 3237 3233 3282 3245 3308 3252 3300 3236 3232 3248 6901 32363237 3240 3248 6801 3240 3244 3249 6425 3286 3241 3241 3232 3289 3304 3253 3252 3249 3278 0 100 20050 Feet Legend Property lines Existing stop signs Proposed stop sign CIty council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St.Page 6 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Page 7 Title: Traffic Study 736 – Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave. at 33rd St. Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize stop signs on Hampshire Ave at 33rd St Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the intersection of Hampshire Ave at 33d St; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of stop signs at all approaches of Hampshire Ave at 33rd St; and, Whereas, Res 97-01 governs the existing stop signs on the west and east approaches of Hampshire Ave at 33rd St; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 97-01 (Resolution authorizing installation of stop signs on W. 33rd Street at Hampshire Avenue) be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install stop signs on all approaches of the intersection of Hampshire Ave at 33rd St. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4g Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave . Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing stop signs on Maryland Avenue at Franklin Ave nue. Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. The request was considered against the city’s traffic control policy. Summary: Staff received a request for all-way stop signs at the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Franklin Ave nue in October 2019. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have signs installed. The stop sign criterion for sightlines was met for this intersection. The criteria for crash history and traffic volumes were not met. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 meeting and recommended the installation of stop signs on the north and south approaches. Two letters were sent out to the surrounding area (403 in total), looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change . 29 total comments were received regarding the recommendation, which were mostly in support. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $300 and will come out of the general operating budget. Stop signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Map Resolution 05-103 New resolution Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. Discussion Background: Staff received a request to evaluate traffic controls at the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Franklin Ave nue in October 2019. Due to winter conditions, traffic requests received in late fall are not evaluated until May. Also, due to COVID-19, the stay at home order this spring meant that traffic volumes were lower this year. As a result, there was a delay in evaluating these requests. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of traffic control signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have traffic controls installed. The stop sign criteria for crash history and traffic volumes were not met for this intersection. However, the criterion for sightlines was met. Stop signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs don’t slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Meaning, stop sign s are not an effective traffic calming measure to decrease overall vehicle speeds on a street segment. Compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. Places, where people have a false sense of security (an assumption that vehicles will stop or yield) and vehicles don’t stop or yield, are a safety hazard. Stop signs also create traffic noise and higher carbon dioxide emissions due to vehicles slowing down, idling, and starting back up again. Due to these potential impacts, the city takes traffic control requests seriously and completes a thorough review of the intersection, using established industry standards to develop recommendations. Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee workgroup made up of the engineering, operations, police, and community development departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes recommendations on possible changes. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 committee meeting and recommended installing stop signs on the north and south approaches. Maryland Avenue at Franklin Ave nue is a three -way intersectio n with a private driveway to the south with existing stop signs on the west and east approaches. Stop or yield signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than 3 approaches and where one of the following conditions exist. In this case, one of the conditions were met. • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 5,000 a day. Result: According to a GPS analysis, less than 5,000 people enter the intersection a day. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three -year period Result: Crash history showed no reported accidents within the last three years that could have been prevented by the installation of a yield or stop sign. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were observed to be obscured from all approaches, not allowing road users the ability to adequately apply the normal right of way rule when stopping or yielding. This is mainly due to the elevation changes and trees at the intersection. Community feedback: In July 2020, a letter was sent to the surrounding area (403 addresses) asking for comments and feedback on the recommended sign installation. Staff received 26 comments from community members: • “I would like to provide feedback for this proposed stop sign and feel it is unnecessary and money that would be better spent on street repairs. That is based on my experience of going through that intersection several times a day for the last twelve years. I have never witnessed an accident at this intersection or even a near accident. So I don’t see the benefit of it. If you can search the traffic records or talk to the police, I am sure the facts will bear this out. So my question what is the point of it? I drive into the entrance to the Greensboro Condominiums which is right at this intersection and I do it from the east on Franklin Avenue. I drive through this intersection multiple times a day seven days a week. There is seldom any traffic at all coming to this intersection from the North heading south on Maryland avenue. It fact is very rare I see a car going through this intersection from Maryland avenue. My guess is everyone that lives on Maryland heads to Louisiana from Maryland using the next street north of Franklin to avoid the light at Louisiana and Franklin. As far as heading into this intersection from the south while exiting the Greensboro condominiums, there is already a stop sign for Greensboro residents before the Franklin avenue intersection. Everyone I have observed exiting the Greensboro condominiums stops at it, even though it may not be a City installed stop sign. Have you looked at that stop sign yet or observed traffic at this intersection yourself? If so, I think you would agree with my opinion. In fact, the driveway approaching Franklin from the Greensboro Condominiums is at step incline so people are ready slowed down before the reach the stop sign at Maryland. We also have a 10mph speed limit on the condominium property that is enforced with a fine if it is not obeyed so they approach the stop sign going 10mph or less. My question to you is, how did this proposal even come about? Your letter does not mention it and it seems like a trivial matter to be spending that kind of money when it would not provide any additional safety. I am very happy you asked for feedback before proceeding with this project.” – Cary Ebert, 7316 W 22nd St, #302 • “The proposal for stop signs on Maryland and Franklin is absolutely needed since there are only 3 in that intersection”. – Tho Aldharara, 7317 Franklin Ave • “I am 100% comfortable and for adding stops signs on the north and south approaches of Maryland Ave at Franklin Ave. Additionally, I’d propose adding stop signs on the north and south approaches of Oregon Ave at Franklin Ave as well. To me, it makes sense for both intersections to have 4-way stops”. – Ben Bennick, 7318 W 22nd St, #214 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 4 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. • “My husband and I support the decision to add STOP signs on the north and south side approaches. We feel this will decrease confusion amongst drivers if they need to stop or not. Some people treat it like a 4-way stop already whereas others do not so it causes confusion. In addition, a lot of people drive down Franklin Ave going rather fast, so hopefully that encourages them to slow down and pay greater attention”. – Brittany Faanes, 1851 Nevada Ave • “We have lived on Maryland Ave S since 2016 and enjoy walking and biking in the neighborhood with our kids. Adding stop signs at this intersection to make it a 4-way stop seems reasonable. I am in favor of any proposal that decreases the speed of traffic, and increases pedestrian and motorist safety in the neighborhood”. – Emily Furseth, 1640 Maryland Ave • “I'm in favor of stop sighs for the north and south approaches to Franklin at this location. I think in the existing arrangement, with signs only on the east and west approaches, drivers may assume there are signs also on the north and south approaches, so they may expect vehicles from those directions to stop. I believe, on the other hand, that this is not an urgent matter; I have lived in a Greensboro townhouse and been using the intersection for almost 30 years and have never seen a collision there”. – Maurice Hobbs, 7223 Franklin Ave • “I agree with the proposal of adding the 2 stop signs to the intersection. The only thing I want to bring up is that the plan introduces the idea of a stop sign on the Southside of Franklin Ave, but there is already 1 there (though it is not the same size as a standard stop sign). While not a big deal, I did want to bring that up since it kinda changes the proposal of adding 2 stops signs, to a proposal of adding only 1 stop sign”. – Trevor Jackson • “I completely support adding the proposed stop signs on Maryland Ave at Franklin Ave. This is a dangerous intersection because it isn't clear that people coming out of Greensboro may not stop and also that people going south on Maryland don't have to stop. This is especially unclear to people who may not have driven this intersection before or regularly. I live in Greensboro Condominiums and have almost had several accidents there. Please put in the stop signs”. – LouAnn Lanning, 7318 W 22nd St, #206 • “I live near the intersection of Maryland Ave and Franklin Ave in St Louis Park and just wanted to say that I support the proposed installation of STOP signs at that intersection”. – Ann Loduha, 1815 Maryland Ave • “I fully support installing stops signs at Maryland Ave. I have lived in Greensboro Condo now for almost 2 years and from day one thought it was odd there was not a stop sign at Maryland. You hear screeching tires and car horns often as most people “assume” it is a four way and so are very surprised when the traffic coming south on Maryland does not stop. I actually think it would be wise to put one at each street that intersects to Franklin to avoid such issues”. – Kris Maas City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 5 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. • “I live in one of the Greensboro townhouses and I am glad to see this proposal. This intersection is dangerous with only the three stop signs that are currently there. Not only is this an extremely busy intersection car and foot traffic-wise, but Franklin Avenue looks and feels like the main road in and out of the neighborhood, and as such the drivers on it don't expect the side street entrances onto it to not stop. I have seen many drivers take off from the stop signs prematurely when there is a car entering Franklin from Maryland. I am surprised there haven't been more accidents there than have already happened. Therefore, I am definitely in support of four stop signs at that intersection”. – Kathy Mahoney, 7357 W F ranklin Ave • “We are in favor of installing STOP signs on the north and south approaches of Maryland Ave at Franklin Ave. We've lived at this address for the past 4 years and usually end up stopping at the end of Maryland as we've noticed much of the traffic traveling east and west on Franklin assumes we have a stop sign and doesn't wait. We've also observed traffic that doesn't stop at the Franklin signs. Prior to moving to our current address, we lived in the Greensboro Condominiums for 7 years and noticed similar traffic patterns. We've spent a lot of time at this intersection and are in full support of installing STOP signs!” – Heather Matzen, 1816 Maryland Ave • “I would like to express my agreement to the proposed stop sign placements. This intersection has been a potential hazard for many years. I think it's a great idea to put a 4 way stop so that everyone can stay safe. Currently, I stop anyways because those on Franklin don't always stop at their stop signs, probably assuming all directions have a stop”. – Sheila Mena, 1801 Nevada Ave • “I completely support the addition of 2 stop signs at the intersection of Maryland Av. and Franklin Av. I live on Maryland Av., so I always theoretically have the right of way as I turn onto Franklin. However, as a practical matter, I usually end up treating my entrance into this intersection as I would treat a 4 way stop. You might as well go ahead and make it a 4 way stop”. – Troy Nelson • “Installing STOP signs at both the north and south side of the intersection is something that must happen. I use this intersection daily and I cannot tell you the amount of times that people assume the north side of the street already has a stop sign. This obviously can create confusion and makes navigating a rather normal 4 way intersection more complicated than it needs to be. Although I have not been involved in any incidents while navigating the intersection, it makes too much sense to add a stop sign on the north and south side to avoid any confusion”. – Mitch Okonek, 1838 Maryland Ave • “I have lived at Greensboro condominiums for 28 years and have always been concerned about that intersection which has no stop signs presently .it's a great idea to have them to put avoid potential accidents on the North and South”. – Richard Skube, 7316 W 22nd St, #214 • “Great plan on the stop signs. Would love to see that area used with more caution. I’m in favor of adding those signs. Additionally along that same path along franklin, there City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 6 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. has been no one maintaining the mess they planted a few years back. It’s out of control and it’s hard for families to get to Westwood or lamplighter”. – Shawn Smith • “I think it’s a good idea to add stop signs on Maryland and Franklin”. – Kellie Taylor, 7414 W 22nd St, #201 • “I am writing in support of adding additional stop signs at Maryland & Franklin. I have lived in my house for almost ten years. Multiple times a week I see a car blow through that intersection. Our neighborhood has an increasing amount of small children that ride their bikes around. I am a mother to a 1 year old and 4 year old. For their safety and others I ask that you add stop signs”. – Rita Vorpahl, 1809 Maryland Ave • “I am in favor of this traffic change - think it is a good idea and will enhance traffic safety on our street”. – Liz Werner, 1820 Maryland Ave • “I live in the Greensboro complex. There is a stop sign in our complex at Maryland where we have to stop to exit the complex. The map you sent out shows recommended sign installation in our complex and on the Maryland Ave side heading south, perhaps you will install a larger stop sign? “I would agree with the stop sign placement at Maryland when traffic is heading south on Maryland. There is a lot of traffic in and out of our complex right there. There is a lot of foot traffic as well (hence the stop sign when we exit our complex). If traffic is coming down the hill on Maryland heading south they come down at faster speeds than if it was a flat side street, plus if they drive down Maryland right into our complex and they don't stop, it could create a pedestrian getting struck on the sidewalk there. “To be honest, it is not often (very rare) that when I stop at the stop sign and turn into our complex, that I have to wait for a car coming down Maryland. But due to the cars parked on the street, you sometimes have to really look to make sure no cars are coming down that hill as they currently don't have to stop”. – Kristina Williams, 7412 W 22nd St, #310 • “As a resident of Greensboro, I fully support the installation of these stop signs. I appreciate the city paying attention to a small inte rsection like this. It will make our community here safer”. – Garrett Wilson, 7333 W Franklin Ave • “A Stop �� Sign Please... Thank You”. – Janet Yackle, 7414 W 22nd St, #210 • Call summary: This intersection has always been a problem. People don’t realize there’s no stop sign on the north approach. I definitely support adding stop signs. – Eva Broude, 1825 Maryland Ave • Call summary: Stop signs are needed at this intersection. People drive 30 mph and it is dangerous. – 7316 22nd St, #112 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 7 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. • Call summary: Nobody is going to care. People don’t stop coming out of the condos. – Joanne Fritz, 1835 Nevada Ave In October 2020, a second letter (403 addresses) was sent out informing people that this item was to appear in front of the city council. The letter again asked for additional comments and feedback. Three comments were received. • “I don’t see the purpose of adding a extra stop signs to this intersection. I have owned a home in the nearby Greensboro Condominiums for eleven years and have never seen or heard of an accident at this intersection, not once. I use the driveway from Greensboro that goes onto Franklin avenue at Maryland daily and there is already a stop sign for residents leaving Greensboro Condominiums. There is very little traffic entering this intersection on Maryland avenue from the north. Have you actually checked the traffic flow? I really don’t think so or this proposal would not have made it this far. Seems like a big waste of money with very little safety improvement. I am totally against this proposal and suggest the money go to the needy or for blacktop improvement”. – Cary Ebert, 7316 W 22nd St, #302 • “I feel it is imperative that an additional stop sign is put up on West Franklin and Marilyn Avenue. I have lived here for 33 years. Since three stop signs were put up and none on Maryland Avenue I have witnessed quite a few accidents and near misses. Most people don’t even stop at the stop signs I’ve noticed. It also appears that most people think that there is a stop sign already on Maryland Avenue and when they don’t stop it’s a surprise when others start crossing the crossway ahead of them. This is a continuous hazard always happening. Please put up the 4th stop sign on Maryland”. – Jillian Gordon, 7361 Franklin Ave • “I am happy to hear that the city's traffic committee recommends installing STOP signs on the North and south approaches of Maryland Ave at Frankline Ave. I hope the city council will approve it on October 19. This intersection is very confusing to people traveling in all directions on Franklin and Maryland. Adding the stop signs on Maryland Ave will eliminate this confusion and all the opp ortunities for accidents this confusion causes. I go through this intersection 2-3 times a day from the south approach on Maryland. I will feel much safer with this change ”. – LouAnn Lanning, 7318 W 22nd St, #206 Resolution: The stop signs on the east and west approaches were installed in 2005 as a part of the Pennsylvania Park neighborhood basketweave (Res 05-103). The proposed resolution will remove the Franklin/Louisiana stop signs from the older resolution so that all intersection signs will be in one place administratively. All other stop signs in the Pennsylvania Park neighborhood are intended to remain as a part of this action. TS 737 location map FRANKLIN AVE W MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S0 100 20050 Feet Legend Property lines Existing stop signs Proposed stop sign City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave.Page 8 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 9 Title: Traffic Study 737 – Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave. at Franklin Ave. Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize stop signs on Maryland Ave at Franklin Ave Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the intersection of Maryland Ave and Franklin Ave; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of stop signs at all approaches of Maryland Ave at Franklin Ave; and, Whereas, Res 05-103 governs the existing stop signs on the west and east approaches of Maryland Ave at Franklin Ave; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that item 6 of Resolution 05-103 (Eastbound and westbound Franklin Avenue approaches to Maryland Avenue) be rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install stop signs on all approaches of the intersection of Franklin Avenue at Maryland Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4h Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St . Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a yield sign on Wyoming Avenue at 33rd Street. Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. The request was considered against the city’s traffic control policy. Summary: Staff received a request for stop signs at the intersection of Wyoming Ave nue and 33rd St reet in October 2019. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop or yield signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have signs installed. The yield sign criteria for sightlines and traffic volumes were met for this intersection. The criterion for crash history was not met. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 meeting and recommended the installation of a yield sign on the south approach. Two letters were sent out to the surrounding area (259 in total), looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. 10 total comments were received and were mostly in support of the recommendation. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $300 and will come out of the general operating budget. Yield signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safe ly and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Map Resolution Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St. Discussion Background: Staff received a request for stop signs at the intersection of Wyoming Avenue and 33rd St reet in October 2019. Due to winter conditions, traffic requests received in late fall are not evaluated until May of the next year. Also, due to COVID-19, the stay at home order this spring meant that traffic volumes were lower this year. As a result, there was a delay in evaluating these requests. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of traffic control signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have traffic controls installed. The yield sign criteria for traffic volumes and sightlines were met for this intersection. The criterion for crash history was not met. Stop or yield signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs don’t slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Meaning, stop signs are not an effective traffic calming measure to decrease overall vehicle speeds on a street segment. Compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. Places , where people have a false sense of security (an assumption that vehicles will stop or yield) and vehicles don’t stop or yield, are a safety hazard. Stop signs also create traffic noise and higher carbon dioxide emissions due to vehicles slowing down, idling, and starting back up again. Due to these potential impacts, the city takes traffic control requests seriously and completes a thorough review of the intersection, using established industry standards to develop recommendations. Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee workgroup made up of the engineering, operations, police, and community development departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes recommendations on possible ch anges. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 committee meeting and recommended installing a yield sign on the south approach. Wyoming Avenue at 33rd St reet is a three -way T-intersection with no existing traffic controls . Stop or yield signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has 3 or more approaches and where one of the following conditions exist. In this case, two of the conditions were met. • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 a day. Result: According to a GPS analysis, more than 2,000 people enter the intersection a day. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three -year period Result: Crash history showed no reported accidents within the last three years that could have been prevented by the installation of a yield or stop sign. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were found to hinder the ability to adequately apply the normal right of way rule from the south approach. Community feedback: In July 2020, a letter was sent to the surrounding area (259 addresses) asking for comments and feedback on the recommended sign installation. Staff received 10 comments from community members: • “I agree with the addition, except, why not a STOP sign? I don't drive that route at all but I do drive on 34th past Wyoming, there are no traffic control signs on Wyoming at that intersection either. I guess Wyoming Ave could use them at both ends”. – Rohin Sachdeva, 3346 Virginia Ave • “I am in favor of installing the yield sign. Too many drivers take the right of way without slowing down or stopping. The yield sign could help. On a related topic, why do the police never seem to monitor the corner of Virginia Avenue South at 30 1/2 street West. Many drivers ignore the stop sign and go at full speed onto Virginia Ave So. There have been many near misses”. – Jeffrey Sherman, 3200 Virginia Ave, #205 • “I support the science and knowledge of degreed engineers in the transportation field, your call”. – Gary Rolek, 8200 W 33rd St, #244 • “I am surprised to see that this is being considered. I'm not against it in any way, but I am shocked that the total lack of traffic control at the intersection of 32nd and Virginia ave S and the very confusing and non-intuitive traffic control at the inte rsection of 32nd and Utah S. “Both of these intersections are massively more traveled than the Wyoming/33rd intersection by vehicles and pedestrians and includes very frequent emergency vehicles as well. “32nd and Virginia, having no control, is constantly a location where vehicles arrive at intersection not knowing who is supposed to stop. I suggest a 4 way stop here since there is most often or always parked cars on all streets in this area, obscuring view of pedestrians, kids on bicycles, cars. “32nd and Utah has a stop sign on 32nd and no stop sign on Utah. This is hyper non- intuitive since Utal T's into 32nd and 32nd is the much more heavily travelled street. I've had several near misses there myself. The stop sign should be removed from 32nd and added to Utah here. This would also result in much lower traffic noise for the homes at Utah and 32nd since all the heavy traffic on 32nd would not be stopping at Utah and then accelerating from that stop to continue on 32nd or turn on utah. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 4 Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St. “Surprisin g to me that wyoming and 34th would be garnering attention relative to these other hugely travelled and very uncontrolled or mis-controlled intersections”. – Daniel Naas • “I rather like the idea of a YIELD sign at 33rd St and Wyoming Ave. - in fact, YIELD signs for all avenues' intersections between Texas Ave and Aquila Ave sound equally sensible. There are other intersections in this vicinity that could be re-arranged for the better: “The intersection between 32nd St and Utah Avenue has stop signs for both Eastbound and Westbound 32nd St, and nothing on Southbound Utah Ave. I've seen quite a few people on 32nd going through the stop signs without stopping. I have seen people on Utah stopping at the intersection. And why shouldn't they stop? They must turn, because they can go no further on Utah without plowing through bushes and a fence, then downhill. Since I frequently drive through this intersection, I slow going South on Utah - I've seen too many cars not stop for the signs. I know, I know, you don't want the cars to have free travel down 32nd - I believe it's called traffic calming. But that chunk of 32nd is only three blocks long. How excited can they get? (NW 33rd St has quite a run, and sometimes the traffic there does get excited at times.) “This particular neighborhood has quite a few of these intersections where one street goes straight through, and the other ends. Sometimes the through street gets the stop signs; sometimes the ended street gets them. I think the through street should be unimpeded, and the ending street gets the sign - YIELD or STOP as seems appropriate”. – Ellen Kuhfeld, 8200 W 33rd St, #326 • “The corner needs a STOP sign, not a yield sign. Drivers do not yield when they see a yield sign. They do not understand what it means and they don’t bother to educate themselves. The rotary YIELD signs at Louisiana and Hwy 7 are TOTALLY IGNORED AND YOU TAKE YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS ON THE ROTARIES THERE. PLEASE create a video on ‘How to drive in a rotary’ and put it on our local TV channel. Also, please send it to one of the local TV stations for their use. This is a major problem in Edina and St Louis Park”. – Susan Petroski, 8200 W 33rd St, #212 • “First, thank you for the opportunity to provide commentary on this issue. It is appreciated and we would like to see this in the future. I have lived at my current address for two years and also lived on West 35th street in the Aquila neighborhood for three years prior. “A yield sign at the corner of the intersection of Wyoming and 33rd is a ridiculous waste of time, effort, and money. A "T" junction with little traffic (such as this) needs no sign. Automatically the right of way rule implies the Through Street (aka 33rd) is always given the go-ahead over someone turning from Wyoming. Obviously, if two cars are approaching one another on 33rd and one is turning left on to Wyoming they would automatically cede the right of way over the person going straight. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 5 Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St. “If visibility is a concern (on which I don't have an opinion), the result should be the removal of the obstacle to vision in question, not a sign”. – Tyler Barthelemy, 3200 Virginia Ave, #312 • “I am not opposed to it, but I question the need for it. As it is now, the intersection is unmarked, and anyone traveling north on Wyoming comes to the "T" at 33rd Street and has to slow down anyway and watch for traffic on 33rd Street in order to safely make a turn. I don't know how a yield sign will change that behavior since it does not signal a stop. I live at 8200 W. 33rd St., and pass that intersection frequently. It doesn't seem to present a much greater challenge than the streets on either side of it that do not have such signs. As I stated, I am not opposed to the sign, I just don't see the need for it”. – Michael Hennen, 8200 W 33rd St, #117 • “In regards to feedback, I guess the one thing I am interested in is the problem that this is trying to address. Adding a yield/stop sign would suggest the goal is to control traffic on Wyoming, especially entering onto 33rd, and as the letter indicates, properly addressing right of way of that intersection. As the resident on both 33rd and Wyoming, I am more interested in controlling the traffic, specially speeding, on 33rd. The number of cars on 33rd is not necessarily many, However, because of the nature of 33rd (long straight, residences only on half the street) I observe a regular number of cars who I would say are speeding. As a parent of two small kids and a representing of many other parents of small kids, this to me is a bigger issue then traffic on Wyoming. With that said and as the letter points out, a yield/stop sign will not necessarily slow down traffic - especially on 33rd. If anything, a discussion to include at least speed limit signs on 33rd in both directions would be appreciated, and signs with a radar providing instantaneous speed would be outstanding (like the one on north bound Texas Ave, just north of the 36th st intersection)”. – Kyle Rasmussen, 3300 Wyoming Ave • Call summary: This is not a good idea because of speeding on 33rd St. All-way stop signs are best. – Mitchell Nelson, 3311 Wyoming Ave In October 2020, a second letter (259 addresses) was sent out informing people that this item was to appear in front of the city council. The letter again asked for additional comments and feedback. No comments were received. TS 738 location map 33RD ST W WYOMING AVE S3200 3320 3324 3305 3301 3305 3300 3304 3304 3321 3301 3315 3320 3314 3311 8400 3310 3325 3315 3314 3300 3311 3325 3321 3310 3324 0 100 20050 Feet Legend Property lines Proposed yield sign City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St.Page 6 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 7 Title: Traffic Study 738 – Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave. at 33rd St. Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize yield sign on Wyoming Ave at 33rd St Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the intersection of Wyoming Ave at 33rd St; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of a yield sign on the south approach of Wyoming Ave at 33rd St; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install a yield sign on the south approach of Wyoming Ave at 33rd St. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4i Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 739 – Authorize yield sign on 18th St . at Hillsboro Ave . Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a yield sign on 18th St reet at Hillsboro Ave nue . Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. The request was considered against the city’s traffic control policy. Summary: Staff received a request for stop signs at the intersection of 18th St reet and Hillsboro Avenue in December 2019. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop or yield signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have signs installed. The yield sign criteria for sightlines and traffic volumes were met for this intersection. The criterion for crash history was not met. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 meeting and recommended the installation of a yield sign on the east approach. Two letters were sent out to the surrounding area (61 in total), looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. Two total comments were received, one in support and one against the staff recommendation. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $300 and will come out of the general operating budget. Yield signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Map Resolution Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 739 – Authorize yield sign on 18th St. at Hillsboro Ave. Discussion Background: Staff received a request for stop signs at the intersection of 18th St reet and Hillsboro Ave nue in December 2019. Due to winter conditions, traffic requests received late in the year are not evaluated until May of the next year. Also, due to COVID-19, the stay at home order this spring meant that traffic volumes were lower this year. As a result, there was a delay in evaluating these requests. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of traffic control signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have traffic controls installed. The yield sign criteria for traffic volumes and sightlines were met for this intersection. The criterion for crash history was not met. Stop or yield signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs don’t slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Meaning, stop signs are not an effective traffic calming measure to decrease overall vehicle speeds on a street segment. Compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. Places , where people have a false sense of security (an assumption that vehicles will stop or yield) and vehicles don’t stop or yield, are a safety hazard. Stop signs also create traffic noise and higher carbon dioxide emissions due to vehicles slowing down, idling, and starting back up again. Due to these potential impacts, the city takes traffic control requests seriously and completes a thorough review of the intersection, using established industry standards to develop recommendations. Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee workgroup made up of the engineering, operations, police, and community development departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes recommendations on possible changes. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 committee meeting and recommended installing a yield sign on the east approach. 18th Street at Hillsboro Avenue is a three -way T-intersection with no existing traffic controls. Stop or yield signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has 3 or m ore approaches and where one of the following conditions exist. In this case, two of the conditions were met. • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 a day. Result: Accordi ng to a GPS analysis, more than 2,000 people enter the intersection a day. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three -year period Result: Crash history showed no reported accidents within the last three years that could have been prevented by the installation of a yield or stop sign. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 739 – Authorize yield sign on 18th St. at Hillsboro Ave. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were observed to be partially obscured from the east approach, not allowing road users the ability to adequately apply the normal right of way rule when stopping or yielding. Community feedback: In July 2020, a letter was sent to the surrounding area (61 addresses) asking for comments and feedback on the recommended sign installation. Staff received 2 comments from community members: • “Thank you for sending a notice. We are in favor of this proposal”. – Mark Christiansen • “Wouldn't one of the unintended consequences of installing a yield sign be that drivers on Hillsboro will be less cautious and drive faster because they have the right of way? I believe the uncertainty of the intersection because it lacks traffic control forces all directions to be more cautious. No?” – Scott Dyer In October 2020, a second letter (61 addresses) was sent out informing people that this item was to appear in front of the city council. The letter again asked for additional comments and feedback. No comments were received. TS 739 location map 18TH ST W HILLSBORO AVE SFAIRWAYLN1621 1640 1801 9321 1810 1811 1810 9311 1800 1630 9322 1621 1811 1610 1820 1641 1631 1821 0 100 20050 Feet Legend Property lines Proposed yield sign City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4i) Title: Traffic Study 739 – Authorize yield sign on 18th St. at Hillsboro Ave.Page 4 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4i) Page 5 Title: Traffic Study 739 – Authorize yield sign on 18th St. at Hillsboro Ave. Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize yield sign on 18th St at Hillsboro Ave Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the intersection of 18th St and Hillsboro Ave; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of a yield sign on the east approach of 18th St at Hillsboro Ave; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering directory is hereby authorized to: 1.Install a yield sign on the east approach of the intersection of 18th St at Hillsboro Ave. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4j Executive summary Title: Amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin County Recommended action: Motion to approve an amendment to the cooperative agreement between Hennepin County and City of St. Louis Park to further the goals of the Southwest Light Rail Transit / Green Line Extension (SWLRT) and the Southwest Community Works Investment Framework. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue the cooperative agreement with Hennepin County to work together to accomplish the goals and future projects of SWLRT and the Southwest Community Works Investment Framework through December 31, 2025? Summary: This agreement allows Hennepin County and City of St. Louis Park to work collaboratively under the multijurisdictional statu te and satisfies the statutory requirement for use of Hennepin County Community Works funding. The Hennepin County Board has approved use of Southwest Community Works funding to support design and construction of trail grade separation in St. Louis Park as well as other elements of SWLRT. The only amendment to the agreement is to extend the termination date from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2025. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. This agreement provides a framework for cooperation for funding in the future as specific projects are brought forth. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Amendment to cooperative agreement Executed cooperative agreement (Hennepin County Contract No. A166833, City Contract No. 24-17) Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Title: Amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin County Contract No. A166833 AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into by and between the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (“COUNTY”), 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487, and the City of St. Louis Park (“CITY”), 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend Contract No. A166833 in order to extend the term. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. The last sentence of Section 1 is deleted and replaced with the following: “This agreement shall commence on January 1, 2017 and expire on December 31, 2025.” This Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2021. Except as herein amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of said Contract No. A166833 shall remain in full force and effect. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Title: Amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin County CITY, having signed this Amendment, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Amendment on ____________________, 2020, and pursuant to such approval the proper County officials having signed this Amendment, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Reviewed by the County STATE OF MINNESOTA Attorney’s Office By: ______________________________ Chair of Its County Board Date: ________________________ ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board Date: By: County Administrator Date: Recommended for Approval: Chief Housing and Economic Development Officer Date: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By __________________________________ Its: City Manager Date: ________________________________ City Department Review: _________________________________ Its: Community Development Director Date: ___________________________ Approved as to form: ________________________________ City Attorney Date: ___________________________ CIty council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4j) Title: Amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin County Page 4 2. Hennepin County Contract No. A 166833 This agreement shall commence on January 1. 2017 and expire on December 31. 2020. Merger and Modification. a.The entire Agreement between the parties is contained in this Agreement andsupersedes all oral agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter. Allitems that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of thisAgreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement andreferenced or attached items. the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.b.Any alterations. variations. modifications, or waivers of provisions of thisAgreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as anamendment to this Agreement and signed by the parties.3.Notices. Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this4. 5. Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing. and shall be sent registered orcertified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator at theaddress stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement. Notice to the CITY shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement.Audits. The books. records. documents. and accounting procedures and practices of the each party relevant to this agreement are subject to examination by the any party and either Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six years atier the effective date of this Agreement. Termination. This Agreement terminates when the Projects, and the funding therefor. have been completed. 2 CIty council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4j) Title: Amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin County Page 5 CIty council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4j) Title: Amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin County Page 6 Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4k Executive summary Title: 2021 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules Recommended action: Motion to approve the 2021 Acceptable Materials and Exemptions list and Administrative Rules. Policy consideration: Does council approve the 2021 Acceptable Materials and Exemption List and Administrative Rul es ? Summary: The Zero Waste Packaging ordinance went into effect o n January 1, 2017. Each year staff review the acceptable materials, items that should be t emporarily e xempt (allow ed), even though they are not recyclable or compostable, and the administrative rul es to guide implementation of the ordinanc e. The acceptable m at erials list for 2021 remain the same as 2020. In 2020, there were five items on the exempt list, w ith the exemption for A sian t ak eout p ails scheduled to end July 1. Th e enforcement of that end date was delayed to J anuary 1, 2021, due to COVID-19. Staff recommends keeping the remaining four exemptions. The reasons f or each exemption are provided in the discussion. Existing exemptions – recommend keeping: 1.Paper food wraps and liners (e.g. fast food wrappers) 2.Portion cups and lids (rigid polystyrene #6, two ounce or smaller) 3.Molded fiber products (e.g. clamshells, containers, bowls, etc.) 4.Paper plates The proposed Administrative Rules for 2021 remain the same as 2020. Information regarding the delayed enforcement of certain new ordinance requirements is also included in the report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion 2021 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List 2021 Administrative Rules Prepared by: Emily Barker, solid waste specialist Reviewed by: Kala Fisher, solid waste manager Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4k) Title: 2021 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules Discussion Background: The Zero Waste Packaging (ZWP) ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2017. The ordinance requires that restaurants and food trucks utilize packaging that is recyclable or compostable . It also requires that restaurants with seating have appropriate waste disposal options for items used on-site (in -house). Since 2017, city staff have prepared a list of temporarily exempt items that are not recyclable or compostable but are still allowed due to limited compliant alternatives. In addition, administrative rules are written to clarify certain aspects of the ordinance. These are reviewed annually and presented to council. Present considerations: In preparation for 2021, staff have re viewed the current temporary exemptions and administrative rule and recommend that all the existing exemptions and rule remain in effect. Note: While the exemption for Asian takeout pails was scheduled to end July 1, 2020, staff delayed enforcement due to COVID-19. That delayed enforcement will end January 1, 2021 and may be extended for similar reasons. Exemptions For 2021, staff proposes keeping the following exemptions : 1.Paper food wraps and liners: These are commonly used to line reusable food baskets and wrap items such as sandwiches, burgers and tacos. They are not compostable due to various grease barriers, which may be plastic, foil or chemical. Most options that would be compostable do not offer the same grease resistance or leak-proof properties . Given the lack of compostable options, staff recommend they continue to be exempted. 2.Portion cups (two ounce or smaller) and lids: While compliant alternatives exist for the rigid polystyrene (#6, PS) portion cups, they have several limitations. •Recyclable options – available, but recyclability is limited due to food contamination and size. If these cups aren’t clean (usually the case when used for condiments) they are too dirty to recycle. Additionally, small portion cups and other items under two inches in size are not wanted by metro recycling sorting facilities because they are difficult to sort properly, often ending up as a contaminant in glass or in the trash. •Compostable – available, but functionality varies depending on use. Many compostable plastics cannot be used for hot condiments, such as nacho cheese. 3.Molded fiber products: As staff presented in fall 2019, most molded fiber products lost their third -party (BPI) certification for compostability effective January 1, 2020. Examples of these products include clamshells, salad bar containers and bowls. This was due to a class of chemicals called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or fluorinated chemicals, which are used to provide moisture and grease resistance. With the new BPI certification requirements going into effect, staff were in conversation with product manufacturers in late 2019 and early 2020, and it was hoped and assumed that numerous PFAS-free products would be on the market by 2021. Unfortunately, due to COVID-19, this has only come to fruition for a few products. Supply chains and production were disrupted due to the virus and product availability was delayed and Page 3 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4k) Title: 2021 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules limited. At this time, only a few products have made their way through the BPI certification process and some are only selling in small or regional markets due to scaled back production. With this lack of product availability, and due to the overall difficult situation restaurants are in due to COVID-19, staff recommend s continuing the molded fiber product exemption. 4.Paper plates: For the same reason as molded fiber products, this exemption would apply to any paper plate . This exemption would not extend to polystyrene (#6) foam plates. Note for internal city operations: one of the few companies that has completed the certification process for PFAS-free compostable plates has now been added to the state purchasing contract, which the city utilizes. This will give the city the ability to buy certified compostable plates for city functions where food is served. It will continue to be a requirement that a food establishment utilizing any of the exempt materials must inform customers that the items are not recyclable or compostable. The business must clearly indicate to customers that the items must be placed in the garbage. This shall be done in print, such as on menus, posted signage or directly on the packaging. Ad ministrative Rules Staff recommends keeping the following administrative rule. 1.Catering activities: Catering activities which take place on private property or at city - owned facilities without organics and recycling will be exempt from the ordinance. As in 2020, for any catering taking place at city-owned facilities where organics and recycling collection containers are available , caterers will need to ensure they follow the ordinance. This applies to city -sponsored events or private events on city property. This will ensure that locations such as the ROC, the Rec Center, City Hall and Westwood Hills Nature Center are minimizing trash generated during events. The city supports this by making compliant p roducts available for purchase when needed. 2019 ordinance amendments update Several amendments were adopted to the ordinance in 2019. These were all scheduled to go into effect in early or mid -2020. Due to COVID-19, staff delayed enforcement of the July 1 requirements. Staff intend to begin enforcing these requirements January 1, 2021. o Compostable cup labeling: Food establishments will need to ensure that all compostable cups and containers are labeled to indicate compostability. o Cup and container lids: Food establishments will need to ensure that lids used for compostable cups and containers are compostable and lids used for recyclable cups and containers are recyclable. Ne xt steps: Upon council approval, the list of acceptable materials and exemptions will be shared with impacted businesses and updated on the city’s website . St . Louis Park Public Works Division • 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2 562 • Fax: 952.924.2560 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance 2021 Acceptable Materials and Exemption List Acceptable materials Pursuant to subsection 12-205 of the ordinance, the public works division has developed the following list of packaging materials that meet the ordinance provisions for 2021. Recyclable packaging – The following materials meet the definition for recyclable packaging under subsection 12-202 of the ordinance. 1.Plastic a.Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE) b.High Den sity Polyethylene (#2 HDPE) c.Polypropylene (#5 PP) 2.Metal a.Aluminum (foil and containers) Compostable packaging – The following materials meet the definition for compostable packaging in subsection 12-202 of the ordinance. 1.Third-party verified compostable products – must be BPI Certified Compostable , Cedar Grove Accepted or Compost Manufacturing Alliance Approved. Temporarily e xempt materials Pursuant to subsection 12-205 and 12-206 of the ordinance, the public works division developed and city council approved the following packaging materials that do not meet the definition for zero waste packaging in subsection 12-202. However, due to the limited alternatives currently available, these items are temporarily exempt from this ordinance and acceptable through December 31, 2021. 1.Paper food wraps and liners (e.g. fast food wrappers) 2.Portion cups and lids (rigid polystyrene #6, two ounce or smaller) 3.Molded fiber products (e.g. clamshells, containers, bowls, etc.) 4.Paper plates Food establishments that choose to utilize temporarily exempt items must provide information to customers to clearly indicate these items cannot be recycled or composted and must be placed in the garbage. This must be done in print, for example on menus, posted signage or directly on the packaging. October 19, 2020 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4k) Title: 2021 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules Page 4 St . Louis Park Public Works Division • 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2 562 • Fax: 952.924.2560 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Administrative Rules City Code Ch. 12, Article VI Effective January 1, 2021 1.Catering activities Section 12.202(b) defines food establishments by using the Hennepin County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 3.3.1. Caterers are included in this definition and are thus required to comply with the ordinance. However, due to the fact that catering is often provided by licensed food establishments from outside the city at event locations that are not normally impacted by the ordinance , the Public Works Division created an administrative rule temporarily exempting catering activities. •Mo st catering activities occurring in the City of St. Louis Park will continue to be temporarily exempt through December 31, 2021. •Catering activities taking place at city -owned facilities where both recycling and organics are available will need to be in compliance. “Catering activities” means the preparation of food under contract in support of an event such as a reception, party, luncheon, conference, ceremony or trade show. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4k) Title: 2021 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List and Administrative Rules Page 5 Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4l Executive summary Title: Retirement recognition for Bernie Riley, Nancy Weiman-Schmelzle and Mark Flumerfelt Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolutions to recognize Electrical Inspector Bernie Riley and Part Time Firefighters Nancy Weiman -Schmelzle and Mark Flumerfelt for their years of service . Policy consideration: None at this time . Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city council. Bernie, Nancy and Mark have chosen not to be honored with a presentation and will not be attending the council meeting. This consent item will officially adopt the resolution s that honor Bernie, Nancy and Mark for their years of service. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable . Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution s Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager Approve d by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4l) Page 2 Title: Retirement recognition for Bernie Riley, Nancy Weiman-Schmelzle and Mark Flumerfelt Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to Electrical Inspector Bernie Riley Whereas, Bernie Riley began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park 20 years ago on October 30, 2000; and Whereas, over the years Bernie has spent countless hours helping homeowners and professional contractors with electrical code questions and problem solving; and Whereas, Bernie has saved the city several thousands of dollars throughout his career on city projects with the most recent in the design of the nature center; and Whereas, Bernie has performed over 39,000 inspections and numerous hours of plan review throughout his caree r with the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, Bernie has always been the go-to person for electrical code questions and interpretations because he is one of the best; and Whereas, Bernie will enjoy his retirement by doing woodworking projects, spending time with his grandchildren and family and traveling to the south during Minnesota winters; Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Bernie Riley for his great contributions and 20 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4l) Page 3 Title: Retirement recognition for Bernie Riley, Nancy Weiman-Schmelzle and Mark Flumerfelt Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to Part Time Firefighter Nancy Weiman-Schmelzle Whereas, Nancy Weiman -Schmelzle began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park Fire Department over 24 years ago on July 10, 1996; and Whereas, Nancy was part of the inaugural class of paid on call firefighters for the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, Nancy is the longest serving part time firefighter on the department; and Whereas, Nancy served as a team leader from 2002 to 2017; and Whereas, Nancy educated countless adults and children on fire prevention and safety over the span of her career; and Whereas, Nancy served as a fire prevention and community outreach specialist from 2017 to 2018; and Whereas, Nancy became o ne of the first Community EMT’s in the State of Minnesota in 2018; and Whereas, Nancy has been a homeowner in the City of St. Louis Park for 25 years, giving back to her community to make it a safer place to live and work; Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Nancy Weiman-Schmelzle for her great contributions and more than 24 years of dedicated sworn service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish her the best in her future endeavors. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4l) Page 4 Title: Retirement recognition for Bernie Riley, Nancy Weiman-Schmelzle and Mark Flumerfelt Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to Part Time Firefighter Mark Flumerfelt Whereas, Mark Flumerfelt began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park Fire Department over 20 years ago on August 21, 2000; and Whereas, Mark served as a team leader from 2003 to 2015; and Whereas, Mark contributed his time and energy toward mentoring part time firefighters; and Whereas, Mark has been a homeowner in the City of St. Louis Park for 29 years, giving back to his community to make it a safer place to live and work; and Whereas, Mark provided countless unrecognized acts of kindness, compassion and empathy for the residents of St. Louis Park during his time as a part time firefighter; Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Mark Flumerfelt for his great contributions and more than 20 years of dedicated sworn service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4m Executive summary Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution establishing the employer contribution for benefits in 2021. Policy consideration: Does council approve the recommended amount of employer benefits contribution for 2021? Summary: This report details the city’s employee benefits planned for 2021, and staff’s recommendation for setting the employer contribution for 2021. The recommendation follows the funding philosophy adopted by the city in 2015 after several meetings and feedback from an employee task force. The employer contribution funding philosophy bases the employer contribution for all plan options on the most utilized plan ($2500 deductible health plan) and covers 100% of the premium for employee only coverage (plus additional funds for voluntary elections for dental and deferred compensation), and 70% of the premium for other employee plus dependent coverage options. For 2021, we were extremely fortunate to get a renewal from our cu rrent health insurance provider (HealthPartners) of a 1.28% increase, with a rate cap of 9% in 2022. This provides stability in rates and gives the city the ability to plan and budget for future years with more accuracy. We are also pleased that 2021 is the second year of a rate guarantee from Delta Dental which means a 0% increase for 2021. Finally, we continue to be in a contract with The Standard for our life insurance and long term disability insurance plans with no increase through 2021. Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2021 budget and will be built into the budget for subsequent years. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager Approve d by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 2 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution Discussion Background: The city has an employee benefits committee that consists of employees represented by all departments and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to educate staff on benefits and get feedback on what staff is interested in seeing in our benefits design. The benefits committee assists with gathering information and making recommendations on potential benefit designs or options; they do not provide input on specific funding amounts for employer contribution. Medical insurance (1.28% premium in crease) The city has been insured through HealthPartners since 2012. We went out for a formal bid for 2019 which is required every five years in accordance with state statute (we will do another formal bid no later than 2023 for 2024 plans). HealthPartners provided a renewal for 2021 of a 1.28% increase in rates. This is extremely favorable and may be attributable to our plan design which encourages consumerism in high deductible plans, and our continued focus on wellness and prevention. 2021 medical insurance monthly premiums (1.28% increase for 2021) $30-Copay – open access Employee $ 944.00 Emp+Child $ 1,981.50 Emp+Spouse $ 2,077.50 Family $ 2,643.00 $2500 Deductible (with VEBA) – open access Employee $ 763.00 Emp+Child $ 1,602.50 Emp+Spouse $ 1,680.00 Family $ 2,136.50 $4500 Deductible (with VEBA) – open access Employee $ 664.00 Emp+Child $ 1,394.00 Emp+Spouse $ 1,461.50 Family $ 1,859.00 $4500 Deductible (with VEBA) – SmartCare Employee $ 624.50 Emp+Child $ 1,311.00 Emp+Spouse $ 1,374.00 Family $ 1,747.50 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 3 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution VEBA refresher The city continues to offer a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding mechanism in coordination with the deductible health plans. The VEBA is funded with employer contributions. Employer VEBA contributions will be placed in a trust in an individual’s name and funds will be available for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. VEBA funds are set aside tax -free, earn tax-free interest and are reimbursed tax-free. The VEBA account stays with the individual after they leave employment and can be used for reimbursement of qualified medical expenses, including premiums. Dental insurance (no change in premiums) We have been insured with Delta Dental for many years and our consultant works closely with them to secure the most favorable rates each year. We were fortunate to have a two year rate guarantee with no increase through 2021 with no changes to the plan design. This is a voluntary plan for our employees. 2021 dental insurance monthly premiums (0% increase) Employee $ 48.90 Employee + Spouse $ 98.32 Employee + Child(ren) $ 92.44 Family $118.54 Long term disability (LTD) (rate guarantee for 2019, 2020 and 2021) We are pleased to continue to offer LTD to all staff at no cost to the employee. This benefit provides income continuation at 60% of pre-disability earnings for anyone who becomes ill or injured and unable to resume work after a six month waiting period. Life insurance (premium reduction and rate guarantee for 2019, 2020 and 2021) A basic life insurance benefit is provided to all benefit-earning employees at 1.5 times their salary, paid by the city. Employees also have the option to purchase additional supplemental insurance (up to $500,000), and spouse and dependent life insurance as well. There is no change to the supplemental insurance rates or plan design. Deferred compensation (continue with current program; no change recommended) The city offers several deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. This is a voluntary program for employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This has also been negotiated into union contracts. 2021 employer contribution recommendation An extensive employee task force was convened in the summer of 2014 to review employee input on employee benefit programs. The result of those meetings was a recommendation to provide tiered employer contribution funding which provided more funding to those who need to insure dependents. The following explains how the funding is developed. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 4 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution How is the “employee only” employer contribution calculated? The funding structure that was implemented based on employee input provides for 100% coverage of the $2500 deductible premium with leftover funds available so employees could purchase voluntary benefits. The monthly calculation for 2021 is as follows: 100% premium for $2500 HDHP $763.00 100% premium for dental insurance $ 48.90 $50/pay period in deferred compensation $108.33 TOTAL EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION: $920.23 ROUNDED TO NEAREST $5: $920.00 $920 is the recommended employer contribution for all employees who choose “employee only” coverage for health insurance. How is the “employee o nly” VEBA contribution calculated? The VEBA contribution applies only to employees who choose to participate in a deductible health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 100% of the employee only deductible in the $2500 deductible plan. This is $2500 per year, or $208.34 per month. Why are there leftover funds recommended for “employee only” coverage? “Employee only” coverage is the choice of a majority of our employees; over 75% of employees choose this level of coverage. In order to encourage this group to voluntarily purchase a comprehensive benefits package, the contribution level provides enough funds to do so. Employees may choose not to use leftover funds to purchase dental insurance or make a deferred compensation contribution if their needs in these areas are already met. In those circumstances, leftover funds are provided as taxable income. How is the employer contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents? The funding structure provides 70% funding for the $2500 deductible plan premium as an employer contribution. The 2021 recommendation continues the 70% employer funding level. Employer Employer paid % of Tier of coverage contribution $2500 deductible plan premium Employee + Child(ren) $1,120/month 70% Employee + Spouse $1,175/month 70% Family $1,495/month 70% How is the VEBA contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents? The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a deductible health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 70% of the “employee plus dependent” deductible in the $2500 deductible plan, which is $5000. 70% of $5000 is $3500 per year, or $291.67 per month. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 5 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution What is the big picture for 2021 employer contribution recommendation? The chart below shows total employee and employer cost of the plan options offered. The “e mployee cost” noted on the right is the difference between the “employer contribution” and the “premium”. The VEBA contribution cannot be used to offset premium costs. 2021 PLAN OPTIONS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Contribution Employee Cost $2500 Employee $ 763.00 $ 920.00 $ 208.34 $ 1,128.34 $ +157.00 Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,602.50 $ 1,120.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,411.67 $ (482.50) Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,680.00 $ 1,175.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,466.67 $ (505.00) Family $ 2,136.50 $ 1,495.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,786.67 $ (641.50) $4500 Employee $ 664.00 $ 920.00 $ 208.34 $ 1,128.34 $ +256.00 Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,394.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,411.67 $ (274.00) Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,461.50 $ 1,175.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,466.67 $ (286.50) Family $ 1,859.00 $ 1,495.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,786.67 $ (364.00) $4500 Employee $ 624.50 $ 920.00 $ 208.34 $ 1,128.34 $ +295.50 Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,311.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,411.67 $ (191.00) SmartCare Emp+Spouse $ 1,374.00 $ 1,175.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,466.67 $ (199.00) Family $ 1,747.50 $ 1,495.00 $ 291.67 $ 1,786.67 $ (252.50) $30 Employee $ 944.00 $ 920.00 -- $ 920.00 $ (24.00) Co-Pay Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,981.50 $ 1,120.00 -- $ 1,120.00 $ (861.50) Open access Emp+Spouse $ 2,077.50 $ 1,175.00 -- $ 1,175.00 $ (902.50) Family $ 2,643.00 $ 1,495.00 -- $ 1,495.00 $ (1,148.00) Waive $ 155.00 -- $ 155.00 $ 155.00 Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be eligible to receive a pro -rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $155 (pro-rated for part-time employees). City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 6 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution How does the 2021 employer contribution differ from 2020? The chart below shows 2020 premiums and employer contributions. 2020 PLAN OPTIONS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Contribution Employee Cost $2500 Employee $ 753.50 $ 910.00 $ 208.34 $1,118.34 $ +156 .50 Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,582.00 $1,105.00 $ 291.67 $1,39 6.67 $ (477.0 0) Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,658.50 $1,160.00 $ 291.67 $1,451.67 $ (498.50) Family $ 2,109.50 $1,475.00 $ 291.67 $1,766.67 $ (634.50) $4500 Employee $ 655.50 $ 910.00 $ 208.34 $1,118.34 $ +254.50 Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,376.50 $1,105.00 $ 291.67 $1,39 6.67 $ (271.5 0) Open access Emp+Spouse $ 1,443.00 $1,160.00 $ 291.67 $1,451.67 $ (283.00) Family $ 1,835.50 $1,475.00 $ 291.67 $1,766.67 $ (360.5 0) $4500 Employee $ 616.50 $ 910.00 $ 208.34 $1,118.34 $ +293.50 Deductible Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,294.50 $1,105.00 $ 291.67 $1,39 6.67 $ (189.50) SmartCare Emp+Spouse $ 1,356.50 $1,160.00 $ 291.67 $1,451.67 $ (196.50) Family $ 1,725.50 $1,475.00 $ 291.67 $1,766.67 $ (250.5 0) $30 Employee $ 932.00 $ 910.00 -- $ 910.00 $ (22.00) Co-Pay Emp+Child(ren) $ 1,956.50 $1,105.00 -- $1,10 5.00 $ (851.5 0) Open access Emp+Spouse $ 2,051.00 $1,160.00 -- $1,16 0.00 $ (891.0 0) Family $ 2,609.50 $1,475.00 -- $1,475.00 $ (1,134.5 0) Waive $ 155.00 -- $ 155.00 $ 155.00 Budget considerations In initial budget projections, city staff had estimated a 9% increase in premiums for 2021. The renewal came in at 1.28%, so the amount needed has been included in the 2021 budget projections. Next steps: Staff is pleased with the benefit programs we have been able to develop and offer. Staff feel that the plans as outlined above will provide satisfactory and affordable options for coverage based on individual needs. Approval is recommended. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 7 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution Resolution no. 20-____ Resolution establishing 2021 employer benefits contribution Whereas, the city council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means for providing employee group benefits; and Whereas, the city council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year; and Whereas, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as approved by the city manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level classification and administration of plans. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: 1. Effective January 1, 2021, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non- union regular employees, including the city m anager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage be set at $920 per month, pro-rated for regular part-tim e employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 2. Effective January 1, 2021, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non- union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE + CHILD(REN) coverage be set at $1,120 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 3. Effective January 1, 2021, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non- union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE + SPOUSE coverage be set at $1,175 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 4. Effective January 1, 2021, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non- union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose FAMILY coverage be set at $1,495 per month, pro-rated for regular part- time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 5. Effective January 1, 2021, employees who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $208.34 per month ($2500/year). 6. Effective January 1, 2021, employees who choose EMPLOYEE+CHILD(REN), EMPLOYEE+SPOUSE, or FAMILY coverage on the DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $291.67 per month ($3500/year). 7. Effective January 1, 2021, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the city for non- union regular employees, including the city manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who WAIVE COVERAGE will be set at $155 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 8. The city will continue to administer other benefit programs. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4m) Page 8 Title: 2021 employer benefits contribution 9. The appropriate city officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit the employee’s or officer’s share of any such premium to the insurer under an approved con tract. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 20 20 Consent agenda item: 4n OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission January 14, 6 p.m. Rec Center Programming Office MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Bluma, Bruce Cantor, George Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Leah Hollingsworth, Dahlia Krebs and Pete May MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Supervisor, Rick Beane, Parks Superintendent, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, Jason West, Recreation Superintendent and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary 1.Call to order Commissioner Cantor, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 2.Presentation None. 3.Approval of minutes a.December 4, 2019 It was moved by Commissioner May, seconded by Commissioner Bluma , to approve the meeting minutes of December 4, 2019 as presented . The motion passed 8–0. 4.Approval of agenda It was moved by Commissioner Hagemann, seconded by Commissioner Bluma , to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 8–0. 5.Business a.Program Update Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Supervisor, introduced herself to the Commission and explained her main duties include youth activities, family activities, special events, overseeing warming houses in the winter and the Oak Hill Splash Pad in the summer. Ms. Abernathy indicated warming houses opened December 21. It has been a great rink season. Rinks have been closed only a couple days due to the warm weather and poor ice conditions. There are warming houses at Birchwood, Browndale, Nelson, Oak Hill and Parkview Parks. This season, 22 attendants were hired to staff the warming houses, which is an average number of staff. To date there have been very few rentals but feel that number will increase with the holidays in the past. Page 2 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4n) Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting mi nutes January 1 4 , 2020 The U.G .L.Y. Sweater Dash, held December 8, went well and the weather was good, advised Ms. Abernathy. The 5K course followed the trails through Louisiana Oaks and Oak Hill Parks. The 205 participants were fun, energetic and many attended the post party at Park Tavern . Participants received a drink ticket from Park Tavern, raffle ticket entry for prizes, a medal for finishing and swag (mittens or buff). To break even in the program, 175 participants are needed so this was a great year with 205. The 2019 summer playground program had approximately 918 kids at 11 different sites Morning and afternoon times were offered. Forty -three staff were hired to cover the playground program, preschool playground program and Oak Hill Splash Pad. The preschool playground program offered three hours of activities and all sites f illed . Staff is revisiting the playground locations for 2020 to ensure each location is targeting the correct age of children. The Westwood Hills Nature Center site will not be available in 2020 due to the construction. There will also be a full day (8 a.m. – 4 p.m.) playground program offered at Wolfe Park. Wolfe Park was chosen due to the amenities which include the Aquatic Park, volleyball, basketball and playground equipment. Commissioner Hollingsworth inquired if staff work with ECFE groups to which Ms. Abernathy indicated we both market each other’s programs. A summer coordinator has begun working on summer programs. Due to a grant received, staff can offered the playground program for $9 per person for residents. S taff is also restructuring the Fabulous Friday program since there has been a decrease in participation, Ms. Abernathy advised. The program will be restructured in hopes to increase participation. Ms. Abernathy advised recruitment for summer positions will begin the end of the month. Summer positions include splash pad attendants, along with preschool and playground attendants. Staff offers the positions to past staff initially, t o gain the knowledge of how many positions need to be filled. Commissioner Cantor inquired on the closing date for the warming houses. Ms. Abernathy indicated they generally close President’s Day (February 17) but have extended the season in the past depending on weather and the staff budget. Commissioner Cantor inquired how that information is communicated to the neighborhoods. Staff works with t he city’s Communications Department to utilize govDelivery, social media, the weather line and signs posted on the warming house doors. Ms. Walsh indicated park maintenance staff would continue to maintain the ice for a week or two extra if weather allows. Ms. Walsh informed the commission that George Haun, the former Parks and Recreation Director, recently passed away. The city received approximately $3,000 in donations for the Access to Fun (scholarship) per Mr. Haun’s memorial. Commissioner Cantor inquired if offering the playground program on Friday’s versus the Fabulous Friday program would be beneficial. Ms. Abernathy will take that suggestion into consideration. Page 3 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4n) Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting mi nutes January 1 4 , 2020 Mrs. West advised the Commission that Ms. Abernathy recently received one of the most prestigious awards, the Dorthea Nelson Award, from the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA). Ms. Abernathy explained Dorthea Nelson was the director for 14 years in St. Louis Park and Nelson Park is named after her. Ms. Nelson began the recreation school through the University of Minnesota and was an advocate for women in the recreation field. Ms. Abernathy is honored to receive the award. Ms. Walsh was awarded the Clifton E. Fre nch award, which is the highest award that can be received through MRPA, Mr. West advised. The Commissioners congratulated Ms. Abernathy and Ms. Walsh on their awards. b.Commission work plan / initiatives for 2020 Ms. Walsh asked Commissioners to review the 2020 workplan and provide comments. Commissioner Cantor inquired if anyone from the school district is included in the community group rotation presentations to which staff will consider. No additional comments were received from Commissioners. Ms. Walsh advised the workplan will be submitted and will advise Commissioners of the date set for the council meeting. c.Review 2020 Capital Improvement Projects Rick Beane, Parks Superintendent, explained the big Capital projects to take place in 2020. •Staff is reviewing trail areas that need to be ADA compliant to ensure they are accessible to all. •Replanting of shrubs and landscaping will take place this year and in future years at the Louisiana Oaks and Highway 7 interchange. Commissioner May inquired if salt resistant plants are identified for that area. Mr. Beane advised Mr. Vaughan, the city’s Natural Resource Coordinator, looks at salt tolerant plants, as well as low maintenance plants, prior to landscaping. •The two tennis courts at Northside Park will be rebuilt. Ms. Walsh indicated those tennis courts are heavily used. Commissioner Hollingsworth inquired if courts will be added. Mr. Beane advised no courts will be added as staff feels two is a sufficient number of courts at that location. •Staff will ensure parks have ADA compliant picnic tables. Some parks have but will identify critical locations. •There is $15,000 identified for the Historical Society Depot. This will include replacing old, aging wood. •Webster Park, located on the northwest corner of Highway 100 and Highway 7, will be reviewed in 2020 to be reconstructed in 2021. Ms. Walsh explained the city is in the process of acquiring the property currently owned by MnDOT. The park has potential for additional amenities. The Engineering Department is also interested in having a water treatment facility under a portion of the park. Staff will keep the Commission updated on the process. •In 2020, four playgrounds will be replaced. Edgebrook, Minikaha Vista and Pennsylvania Parks, along with the Westwood Hills Nature Center, will receive new playground equipment. Staff will work with Kids Around the Page 4 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4n) Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting mi nutes January 1 4 , 2020 World to see if they would like the old equipment. Mr. Beane described where each playground structure is located. Staff will h ost neighborhood meetings and allow residents to vote for the new playground equipment. d.Westwood Hills Nature Center Update Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, advised the climbing rock structure was saved and will be incorporated in the nature play area which will be constructed in the fall, after construction subsides. Staff reviewed nationwide designs for the nature play area which will include boulders and a hill with a slide built into it. The city received a $100,000 grant from the DNR to assist with funding of the play area; the city budgeted $100,000. Kids Around the World took the old play equipment. The city purchased Matterport, a camera and software program, which provides a walkthrough of the building with 360-degree visuals. The 360 images are on the city’s website for all to view . Currently, the walls are up and the ceiling and roof are on the building. Mr. West provided a walk through, and descriptions of the areas, via Matterport to the Commissioners. Mr. West explained the residents chose names for the three conference rooms – Birch, Aspen and Willow as part of the rank choice voting demo put on by the Clerk’s office. Mr. West showed pictures of the building as of last Friday. Mr. West indicated the Matterport program will be used for virtual walkthrough s of other facilities including the Rec Center banquet room, park buildings and other rental spaces. Commissioner Bluma inquired if the program could be used to show the location of restrooms, etc. in the parks. Mr. West advised Matterport works with Google maps so may be an option. Friends of the Arts (FOTA ) organized a task force to help create themes for the Request for Proposal for art for the nature center, Mr. West advised. One of the artists, Chris Tully , will create a 16’ x 8’ poly mold , 2D/3D woodland scene on the largest wall upon entry through the group entrance, along with some hanging birds above that space. Another artist, Emily Lavalier, will create a large 6’ original framed high -density collage artwork to go on the wall in the adjacent hallway. Commissioners viewed sketches of artwork, which is very interactive. Commissioner Hagemann advised cities normally contract with Forecast Artwork; FOTA assisted the city with the contracts in hopes of offering their services for other organizations in the future. The city received a considerable discount. Original goal was to have one artist, but task force was torn between two artist proposals so decided to hire both artists for two smaller pieces versus one large. Mr. West advised staff is interested in having outdoor art and possibly some art pieces in the water area in the future. Ms. Walsh indicated the Rotary is interested in partnering with iconic art structure in the front. The Commission ers inquired on the feedback received of the new building to which Mr. West indicated the feedback has been positive with the visual aspects provided. Page 5 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 4n) Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting mi nutes January 1 4 , 2020 Mr. West advised the keys to the building are scheduled to be in hand May 1 which is when staff will start moving in . The ribbon cutting date will be provided. Commissioner Cantor inquired if the ribbon cutting will be part of the Parktacular event. Mr. West indicated it has been discussed but do not want residents torn between the two events. 6.Staff communication Ms. Walsh advised the Minnesota Wild practiced at the ROC on January 2 with approximately 1,000 people in attendance. They enjoy the venue and want to come back in future years. The players do a great job at public relations by handing out pucks, sticks and signing autographs. Commissioner Bluma inquired if staff has a feel for how far people traveled to attend the practice. Staff is unsure but know their season passholders are from all over. The players were not required to stay around the venue but they did. Commissioner Cantor inquired if Hockey Day Minnesota has booked with St. Louis Park. Ms. Walsh indicated they use Target Field for their outdoor winter classic series. They are aware St. Louis Park wants them, but the city has not been selected. Ms. Walsh advised the local Chinese immersion school came to talk with China’s Olympics team and the Olympic team went to their school. Both enjoyed the collaboration. The ShamROC Ice Bowling event was described to the Commissioners by Mr. West. This is the first year of the event. Commissioners were invited to get a team together or volunteer at the event. Members were encouraged to contact Jason Eisold or Jason West if interested in volunteering. Commissioner Hollingsworth inquired if the commission can get a quarterly update on volunteer opportunities. Staff will have Laura Smith, the city’s volunteer coordinator, attend a future meeting also, Ms. Walsh advised. Commissioner Hagemann suggested adding volunteer opportunities to the agenda monthly to reference. 7.Member communication Commissioner Hollingsworth shared she had a baby girl and all is well. 8.Other / future agenda items Next meeting: February 19, 2020 9.Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Foulkes , seconded by Commissioner Hagemann to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 p.m. The motion passed 8–0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy M. Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 20 20 Consent agenda item: 4o OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission August 12, 2020, 6 p.m. WebEx Videoconference MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Bluma, Bruce Cantor, George Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Leah Hollingsworth and Dahlia Krebs. MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete May STAFF PRESENT: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager, Jennifer Monson, Senior Planner, Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, Jason West, Recreation Superintendent and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary 1. Call to order Commissioner Hollingsworth, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 2. Presentation None. 3. Approval of minutes – January 14, 2020 It was moved by Commissioner Hagemann, seconded by Commissioner Bluma , to approve the meeting minutes of January 14, 2020 as presented. The motion passed 7–0. 4. Approval of agenda It was moved by Commissioner Griffin , seconded by Commissioner Hagemann, to approve the agenda as presented . The motion passed 7–0. 5. Business a. Park and trail dedication – Xchange Medical Office Building Jennifer Monson, Senior Planner, presented a proposal from The Davis Group to redevelop the site at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard with a new 77,500-square-foot, three - story medical office building (“Xchange Medical Office ”) to the Commission. The Commission viewed the proposed site plan and learned the preliminary and final plat application includes combining four parcels into one, removing more than 400 cubic yards of fill, a variance of 25 parking spaces, and a right-of-way vacation of a portion of 14th Street. Ms. Monson described accesses to the building, sidewalks and dedicated right -of-way for bike lanes in the future. The proposal includes a healing garden and additional seating areas plus an enhanced bus stop (heating in winter via solar panels). City council meeting of October 19 , 2020 (Item No. 4 o) Page 2 Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting minutes August 12 , 2020 The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend additional parks in this area; thus staff recommends $20,603.99 park dedication fee in lieu of park land. It was moved by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Hollingsworth to accept cash‐in‐lieu of land in the amount of $20,603.99. The motion passed 7‐0. b. Evergreen Award volunteers Ms. Walsh indicated the Evergreen Award is based on nominations for beautiful landscaping. A great deal of nominations were received this year and would like one or two commissioners to assist in the process of selecting a winner. Visiting nominated properties begin mid-August as the landscaping looks best this time of year. After visiting the nominated properties, the volunteers discuss and select a winner. Commissioner Hollingsworth and Griffin volunteered. The Commissioners names and contact information will be provide d to Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator. c. Adaptations to programs and facilities due to COVID-19 Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, indicated adjustments were made to programs and facility usage due to COVID-19. Many summer programs were cancele d, while others were offered virtually. Registration for youth programs is lower than usual due to the pandemic. Mr. West advised registration is normal for adult softball, but lower for other adult sports and football was not offered due to restrictions. The summer playground program was revised to ensure capacities were not exceeded and allow for social distancing. P articipants registered on a weekly basis for the morning or afternoon sessions. Most weeks are at capacity and the program is going well. Due to CDC recommendations, the Oak Hill Park Splash Pad has been limited to 75 patrons at one time. A staff person is present when it is open to ensure capacity is at or below. The capacity has been reached multiple times on hot days. So far have had approximately 10,000 visitors , which is comparable to past years. The outdoor concert series has had a great turnout! Some concerts were canceled, if a large crowd was anticipated, as it is our intent to have small crowds. Staff encourages wearing masks and social distancing. Masks are available for those without. People have spread throughout the park to enjoy the music. Kids’ concerts have an average of 50-100 people in attendance, which is similar to past years. Open Mic Night is also similar to past years with an average of 30-70 people. Commissioner Hollingsworth inquired if the summer playground program could be a full day as well to assist with daycare. Mr. West indicated participants can attend morning (9 a.m. – noon) and afternoon (1 – 4 p.m.) programs in the same week and register for City council meeting of October 19 , 2020 (Item No. 4 o) Page 3 Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting minutes August 12 , 2020 numerous weeks. Staff also offered a full day program at Wolfe Park called Wolfe’s Den. Commissioner Hollingsworth suggested offering a program beginning in mid-May for full weekdays to assist with daycare issues. Mr. West will bring the idea to the programmers for next year. d. Aquatic Park entrance project update Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager, advised there has been 10 - 15% more ice rented this year than normal years as other ice arenas didn’t open or were extremely restrictive. The Rec Center opened as soon as it could, with restrictions in place. Ice is rented solid from 6 a.m. – 10 p.m. daily. Tournaments have begun, eight out of ten weekends, through October. Revenue is higher than forecasted and ice is going well. The Aquatic Park opened July 1 at 50% capacity, which is 600 patrons or less at one time. In July, 15,000 individuals visited the Aquatic Park which is slightly down from the average of 23,000 in a normal year. Numerous non-residents utilized the facility as no other pools in the area opened. The Aquatic Park will close August 26 for the season. The new outdoor Aquatic Park entrance was scheduled to open when the Aquatic Park opened, but due to COVID-19, there were delays. Staff worked through the delays, and successfully utilized the entrance when ready. Mr. Eisold advised a $100,000 grant has been received to assist with funding the project, which is near completion. Mr. Eisold indicated the ROC has gained a lot of interest for events, being an outdoor facility. Event capacity in the ROC, as well as all other facilities, has been reduced according to the CDC guidelines. Ice will be installed on the ROC in early October. Commissioner Cantor inquired how staff keeps patrons safe during tournaments. Mr. Eisold advised staff works closely with MIAMA and the state on safety protocols. The protocols include users wear masks when entering the building, number of players on the ice is restricted, capacity and seating of spectators in restricted and cleaning / sanitizing spaces after each use. Users are aware of expectations and staff enforcement are vital. Each arena has different rules / policies, so some confusion comes into play. Staff reminds users of expectations. Ms. Walsh commended Mr. Eisold and staff on an outstanding job monitoring and enforcing restrictions. Ms. Walsh advised ice rental is bringing in $85,000 - $87,000 monthly in revenue. From a city -wide perspective, ice rental has greatly helped from a financial perspective. Throughout this transition, the City Manager has provided great support. e. Westwood Hills Nature Center update Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager, advise the new building opened to the public on July 6 when summer camps began. The parking lot is complete, so all parking is off the street. The solar panels, which are located on the top of the building, went live approximately two weeks ago. Sundial Solar read the panels are City council meeting of October 19 , 2020 (Item No. 4 o) Page 4 Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting minutes August 12 , 2020 providing 85 kilowatt hours. The building is using ten and the rest is sent back to the grid (as of Thursday). Staff is working with the General Contractor on punch list items. Commissioners viewed photographs from the deconstruction of the old building. Valuable and reusable items were removed from the building before the building was demolished and area graded. Emily Lavalier’s high -density art piece, located in the hallway leading into the Oak Room, was shown to members. Commissioner Hagemann inquired on the status of the other artwork slated for the building. Mr. West advise d the St. Louis Park Rotary is now under contract and Chris Tully’s artwork for the 18’ wall is in process. The artist had issues with the kiln but is working through those. The new building has people counters at the doors, Mr. Oestreich explained, that provide the data to a website so staff can analyze traffic flow. This is a free software program for the city to use as a pilot site. Commissioner Hollingsworth inquired when the playground structure will be installed to which Mr. Oestreich indicated it will be installed by June of 2021 to receive DNR funding. Summer camps, which are provide for eight weeks, began July 6. Staff followed the Governor’s recommendation for camps which included meeting parents in the parking lot, thus restricting access to entrances. The procedures worked great and participants were safely spread in and outside of building. To ensure safety, the Junior Naturalist program was offered this year, but they did not assist with the animals. Also, every camp held the same group of participants together in pods of ten. Staff continues to produce Westwood Wednesdays, which has been well received. The first rental in the new building was for a groom’s dinner last Friday and it went well. Two Tree Trust crews (one free and one funded) were onsite to rebuild the staircase and helped remove the old structures that were not part of the building project. Outdoor benches will be constructed from the old Glulam beams originally in the old building. Commissioner Canto r inquired is the new nature center is receiving a lot of visitors. Mr. Oestreich indicated is has been busy with a constant stream of visitors but never overcrowded. Commissioner Hagemann inquired how restricted occupancy works with program participants and the public in the building. Three rooms are reserved for summer camps, Mr. Oestreich explained , and the public has access to the exhibit space and hallway. This keeps program participants and the public separate. Commissioner Hagemann inquired if there is a capacity limit for the public to which Mr. Oestreich advised generally only two to four people go through the space at a time so has not been an issue. City council meeting of October 19 , 2020 (Item No. 4 o) Page 5 Title: Parks & recreation advisory commission meeting minutes August 12 , 2020 Mr. West encouraged Commissioners to attend the ribbon cutting for the new building on September 13 at 2:30 p.m. Potentially, staff will host a 40th anniversary celebration of the old building in spring. 6. Staff communication Cindy Walsh exclaimed her appreciate of staff during COVID time, especially during those early, uncertain times. Commission members will keep apprised of changes as the year progresses. She assured the commission staff is conservative when opening opportunities for those that feel comfortable using ou r facility and joining programs. Keep in mind youth sports may look different than high school and college sports. Staff follows what is recommended by the state and CDC. The city does not make decisions for youth associations nor 501C groups. Ms. Walsh thanked the Commissioners for their support. 7. Member communication Commission members offered their assistance to staff. Ms. Walsh advised staff is continually watching the governors’ orders and doing best to keep up on changes. Commissioner Cantor suggested moving the staff appreciation picnic generally scheduled for fall, be rescheduled in the spring. Commission members discussed and agreed to move event to spring due to current restrictions. Commissioner Krebs advise she has reapplied to be on the commission for another year. Commissioner Cantor asked Commissioner Krebs to reach out if anything concerning comes from classmates as this time of year has not been good for mental health. 8. Other / future agenda items Next meeting: September 16, 2020 and will be held via WebEx in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Griffin may be out of town; will advise. Commissioner Cantor requested a presentation from youth soccer or football to hear what they are doing during COVID-19. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Hagemann, seconded by Commissioner Hollingsworth to adjourn the meeting at 7:08 p.m. The motion passed 7–0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy M. Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Action agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Appointment of youth representatives to boards and commissions Recommended action: Motion to appoint youth representatives to the boards and commissions as listed in exhibit A . Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to appoint the youth representatives listed in exhibit A to serve on the boards and commissions listed for the respective terms? Summary: Youth members are appointed annually to one -year terms. During the recruitment cycle, the city received nine youth applications which includ ed three youth seeking reappointment and six new applicants. All applicants are extremely impressive students who are interested in dedicating their time to service in the community. Councilmembers Kraft, Rog and Mohamed interviewed eight youth candidates and provided the recommendations in exhibit A. F ollowing appointment by the council, all applicants will receive notification of their appointment and will participate in an orientation with their staff liaison prior to the start of their service. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Exhibit A Prepared by: Maria Solano , senior management analyst Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 5a) Page 2 Title: Appointment of youth representatives to boards and commissions Exhibit A Name Board/Commission Term Expiration Zoe Frank Environment & Sustainability – youth member 8/31/2021 Lillian Hertel Environment & Sustainability – youth member 8/31/2021 Andre Barajas Human Rights Commission – youth member 8/31/2021 Li Livdahl Human Right Commission – youth member (non-voting) 8/31/2021 Dahlia Krebs Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission – youth member 8/31/2021 Anavey Hosak Police Advisory Commission - youth member 8/31/2021 Theodore Pohlen Community Technology Advisory Commission – youth member 8/31/2021 Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Public hearing: 6a Executive summary Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance adopting fees for 2021 and set second reading for Nov. 2, 2020. Policy consideration: Are the proposed fees commensurate with the cost of the various services the city provides? Summary: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget process. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations, and to make sure our business costs are covered for corresponding service s. Council only acts on the Appendix A items as those are within our city code; the other fees are set administratively. Please note, the hearing for utility rates, storm water and solid waste will be at the next regular city council meeting on Nov. 2, 2020. Next steps: The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for Nov. 2, 2020. If approved, the fee changes will be effective Jan. 1, 2021. Financial or budget considerations: The proposed fee changes have been incorporated into the preliminary 2021 budget. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Proposed ordinance Prepared by: Sharae Sledge , finance manager Reviewed by: Melanie Lammers, chief financial officer Approve d by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Discussion Background: Each department director has reviewed fees listed in Appendix A of the City Code. The administrative services department has worked with individual departments and their recommendations are included in the attached ordinance. Present considerations: Summary of Proposed Ordinance Fee Changes The administrative services, information resources, community development, e ngineering, fire, building and e nergy , operations and recreation, and police departments have each reviewed and analyzed the proposed fee adjustments, and/or additions, or removals that are the shown in Appendix A (attached). The 2021 proposed fee adjustments reflect the increased administrative costs of providing services. Next steps: The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for Nov. 2, 2020. If approved, the fee changes will be effective Jan. 1, 2021. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance adopting fees for calendar year 2021 The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: S ection 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby set by this ordinance for calendar year 2021. Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 21, 2019 by Ordinance No. 2574-19 for the calendar ye ar 2020 which is hereby rescinded. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100 Chapter 12 – Environment $50 Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100 Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $100 Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management – Multifamily & Commercial $100 Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200 Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $50 Chapter 24, Section 47 – Visual obstructions at intersections $35 $100 Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves or snow into street prohibited $100 Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right -of-way without a permit $100 Chapter 24-342 – Snow, ice and rubbish a public nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner $25 first time, Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners. Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval. $750 Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 Violation of sprinkling ban. $50 first time, Fee shall double for each City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners Chapter 36 – Zoning $50 Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit D evelopment, or Special Permit approval $750 Repeat Violations within 24 Months Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000 Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections. CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Domestic Partnership Registration Application Fee $50 Amendment to Application Fee $25 Termination of Registration Fee $25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comp rehensive Plan Amendments $2,150 Conditional Use Permit $2,150 Major Amendment $2,120 Minor Amendment $1,150 Fence Permit Installation $20 Grant Technical Assistance (DEED, Met Council, Hennepin County, etc.) $3,000 ($2,000 non-refundable) Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50 Official Map Amendment $600 Parking Lot Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 Driveway Permit $25 Planned Unit Development Preliminary PUD $2,150 $3,000 Final PUD $2,150 $3,000 Prelim/Final PUD Combined $3,200 $5,000 PUD - Major Amendment $2,150 PUD - Minor Amendment $1,150 Recording Filing Fee Single Family $50 Other Uses $120 Registration of Land Use $50 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 5 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Sign Permit Erection of Temporary Sign $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $100 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $100 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $150 Special Permits Major Amendment $2,150 Minor Amendment $1,150 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $900 Subdivision Dedication Park D edication (in lieu of land) Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of the unimproved land as determined by city assessor Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit Subdivisions/Replats Preliminary Plat $1,000 plus $150 per lot Final Plat $600 Combined Process and Replats $1,200 plus $150 per lot Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $375 Temporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,500 Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50 Time Extension $200 Traffic Management Plan Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq. ft of gross floor Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees $140 per caliper inch Variances Commercial $550 Residential $300 Zoning Appeal $300 Zoning Letter $50 Zoning Map Amendments $2,150 Zoning Permit Accessory Structures, 200 sq. ft or less $25 Zoning Text Amendments $2,150 $3,000 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Permit Parking -High School & Medical need No Charge Right of Way Permits Base Fee Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut, or Curb and Gutter Permit $60 $12 per 10 linear feet Excavation or Obstruction Permit Base Fee $60 Hole in Road/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $60 per hole $65 per hole City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 6 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) 0-100 ft = $200, Over 100 ft = $200 + $1 per sq. ft. over 100 ft Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400) 0-100 ft = $400, Over 100 ft = $400 + $1 per sq. ft. over 100 ft Delay Penalty 2 times total permit fee Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit Permit Fee $1,500 per antenna Rent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless support Structure $150 per year per antenna Maintenance associated with space on a city-owned wireless support structure $25 per year per antenna Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from utility (2) $73 per radio node less than or equal to max watts; (ii) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii). Delay Penalty 2 times total permit fee Temporary No Parking Signs (for ROW permit work) Deposit of $25/sign (minimum $100 per permit) Temporary Private Use of Public Property $350 $750 Dewatering Permit Administrative Fee (all permits) $250 Discharge to Sanitary Sewer Charge based on duration/volume of discharge Erosion Control Permit Application and Review – single family $300 $350 Application and Review – other applicants $700 $750 Deposit – single family $1,500 Deposit – other applicants $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500) FIRE DEPARTMENT False Fire Alarm Residential Commercial 1st offense $0 $0 2nd offense in same year $100 $100 3rd offense in same year $150 $200 4th offense in same year $200 $300 5th offense in same year $200 $400 Each subsequent in same year $200 $100 increase Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred Service Fees Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Tents and Membrane Permit Tents/Membrane Structures over 400 sq. ft. $100 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 7 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance BUILDING AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT Building Demolition Deposit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 All Other Buildings $5,000 Building Demolition Permit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $180 All Other Buildings $300 Building Moving Permit $500 Business Licenses Billboards $170 per billboard Commercial Entertainment $290 Courtesy Bench $70 Dog Kennel $165 Environmental Emissions $340 Massage Therapy Massage Therapy Establishment $385 Massage Therapy License $125 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $35 Pawnbroker License Fee $2,000 Per Transaction Fee $2 Investigation Fee $1,000 Penalty $50 per day Sexually Oriented Business Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500 High Impact $4,500 Limited Impact $125 Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $610 Vehicle Parking Facilities Enclosed Parking $245 Parking Ramp $195 Tanning Bed Facility $300 Certificate of Occupancy For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings) Up to 5,000 sq ft $500 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $800 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,200 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,600 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $2,000 above 200,000 sq ft $2,500 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy – Single Family Temporary Certificate of Occupancy – All other occupancies $90 $150 Certificate of Property Maintenance Change in Ownership Condominium Unit $155 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 8 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $335 Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $300 per building + $17 per unit Single Family Dwellings $235 All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft $500 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $800 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,200 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,600 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $2,000 above 200,000 sq. ft $2,500 Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance SF Residential $95 All others $255 Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $65 Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities) Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Up to $500 Base Fee $65 $500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $65 + $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 Construction Permits (cont.) $2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $95 + $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 $25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $440 + $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $690 + $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,040 + $6 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,440 + $5.50 for each Additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 $1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $6,190 + $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Single Family Residential Exceptions: Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only House or House and Garage $145 Garage Only $75 Residing House or House and Garage $145 Garage Only $75 Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $250 Electrical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation Installation of traffic signals per location $150 Single family, one appliance $65 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 9 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system install or repair) $125 Mechanical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $75 Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $75 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $65 Plumbing Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $65 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities) Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace/repair sewer or water service $100 Water Access Charge $800 per SAC unit charged on new or enlarged water services. Competency Exams Fees Mechanical per test $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30 Contractor Licenses Mechanical $110 Solid Waste $215 Tree Maintenance $105 Dog Licenses 1 year $25 2 year $40 3 year $50 Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 Interim License $15 Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55 Penalty for no license $40 Inspections After Hours Inspections $250 plus $90 per hour after the first hour Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit t able Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections) $130 Insurance Requirements A minimum of: Circus $1,000,000 General Liability Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 10 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 License Fees - Other Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50) License Reinstatement Fee $250 Transfer of License (new ownership) $75 Plan Review - 50% of amount due at time of application. Exception: Single Family Residential additions, accessory structures and remodels. Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee Rental Housing License Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $100 per unit Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $185 per duplex Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit Multiple Family Per Building $250 Per Unit $18 Single Family Unit $135 per unit Temporary Noise Permit $70 Temporary Use Permits Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 Commercial Film Production Application $100 Petting Zoos $60 Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110 Vehicle Decals Solid Waste $26 Tree Maintenance & Removal $10 OPERATIONS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $50 each Winter Parking Permit Caregiver parking $25 No off-street parking available No Charge Off-street parking available $125 POLICE DEPARTMENT Animals Animal Impound Initial impoundment $40 2nd offense w/in year $60 3rd offense w/in year $85 4th offense w/in year $110 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 11 Title: Public hearing to consider first reading of 2021 fee ordinance Boarding Per Day $30 Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 False Alarm (Police) Residential Commercial 1st offense $0 $0 2nd offense in same year $100 $100 3rd offense in same year $100 $125 4th offense in same year $100 $150 5th offense in same year $100 $175 Each subsequent in same year $100 $25 increase Late payment fee 10% 10% Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 $150 Lost ID Replacement Fee $25 $25 Vehicle Forfeiture Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250 $250 Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2021. First Reading October 19, 2020 Second Reading November 2, 2020 Date of Publication November 12, 2020 Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2021 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Public hearing: 6b Executive summary Title: Assessment of delinquent charges Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the public hearing. No Further action. Approval of the resolution will be at the Nov. 2, 2020 city council meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to collect outstanding fees and charges through the special assessment process? Summary: The city certifies delinquent charges to Hennepin County as a means to collect on these accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment process and becomes a lien on the individual properties that is due over the next year or several years, depending upon the type of charge. Information on the 2020 certificat ion process is provided in the following discussion. Financial or budget considerations: Collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability of the city’s utility systems and to reimburse the city for expenses incurred in providing services. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Sample certification letter Resolution Prepared by: Sharae Sledge , finance manager Reviewed by: Melanie Lammers, chief f inancial officer Approve d by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6b) Page 2 Title: Assessment of delinquent charges Discussion Background: Each of the customers involved in this special assessment process received a city service. Subsequently, the customers were then billed through our regular billing process. The invoice(s) is/are now past due, and the recommended method of collecting the past due amounts is through certification as a special assessment to the property for the next year or years taxes depending on the delinquency. In advance of the public hearing date, individual letters were mailed to property owners advising them of the assessment and their right to be heard before the city council. Per council policy, all delinquent utility accounts have been assessed a $15 administrative fee. This fee is not included in the 2020 amount below so as to provide consistent comparative data. The table below shows comparison data from 2016 - 2020 in relation to number of letters mailed and value of delinquent amounts. Year Number of Letters Delinquent Amounts Final Certification Amounts 2020 1283 $739,944 N/A 2019 1660 $946,731 $457,112 2018 1413 $832,955 $507,671 2017 1894 $952,953 $528,208 2016 1866 $964,642 $531,078 Each year there are a number of residents who pay their delinquent amount(s) be fore the certification deadline, thereby reducing the final amount certified and sent to Hennepin County. In addition, in 2020 the city responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by waiving late p enalties f or u tilit y payments. Late penalties have be en waived since March 17, 2020 and will remain waived throughout the duration of the emergency order. Also, during the month of October, there are several hundred property owners who contact the city w ith questions about their outstanding balance(s) and the certification process. The delinquent balance was $592,114 as of the close of business on Oct. 12, 2020. Staff will provide the de linquent amount balance as of the close of business on Oct. 19, 2020 at the council meeting. Customers have unt il Nov. 2, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. to pay the delinquent amount. The amounts shown do not include interest, the $30 per account administrative fee, or the $75 p enalty for u tility accounts that are being certified for the second consecutive year. Of the 592 accounts certifi ed last y ear, 318 received this additional penalty of $75 for be ing certified in consecutive years. A copy of the assessment roll is o n file with the city clerk’s office for review. Next steps: After conducting a public hearing, the city council will take action b y p assing a resolution at the Nov. 2, 2020 city council m eeting to direct the assessment of delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations against the benefiting property Staff will continue to collect payments relate d to the delinquent accounts and work with residents to resolve issues related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts outstanding as of Nov. 2, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. will be certified to Hennepin County for collection as part of the owner’s property tax bill. Upon certification, the de linquent amounts will become a lien on the individual properties. At this time, the finance division has not received notice of anyone wanting to speak at the public hearing. Sample Customer 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Sept. XX, 2020 Subject: Past due utility bill This letter is to inform you that a portion of your utility bill balance was delinquent as of Sept. XX, 2020. By receiving this letter, this account has been moved into certification and has received an administrative fee of $15. If a payment of $593.78 is not received by November 2, 2020 at 4:30 pm, any unpaid balance will be added to the property owner’s 2021 taxes along with additional fees. To learn more about this proposed assessment including the appeal process, please see the reverse side of this letter. The city council will be discussing the proposed special assessment for your property on October 19, 2020 and will take action at the November 2, 2020 council meeting. The St. Louis Park city council will hold a virtual public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on October 19, 2020. The meeting can be monitored with audio and video at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or by calling 1‐312‐535‐8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. There are several options available when making a payment; in person by cash, check or credit card at city hall. Payments may also be made by mailing a check to city hall, paying with a credit card or checking account at www.invoicecloud.com/stlouisparkmn or over the phone by calling 952.924.2111 and select option 1. If you wish to speak with someone about this notice or have questions about making a payment please call 952.924.2111, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. ‐ 4:30 p.m. To ensure that your payment is applied correctly we ask that you NOT use your bank’s online bill pay service to pay this special assessment after Oct. 15, 2020 due to processing time. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Please return this portion with your payment Make checks payable to City of St. Louis Park, Utility Billing, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Past due amount Past due amount, plus $15 admin fee. Pay before Nov. 2, 2020 at 4:30 pm After Nov. 2, 2020, this unpaid balance is no longer payable to the City of St. Louis Park. The past due amount, plus initial $15 admin fee, plus $30 certification fee, plus $75 penalty if applicable, plus 3.5% interest, will be added to the 2021 property taxes. $578.78 $593.78 $648.11 Account number: 00012345‐0012345678 Service address: 5005 MINNETONKA BLVD Property identification number (PID): 9876543210123 Page 3 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6b) Title: Assessment of Delinquent Charges City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6b) Page 4 Title: Assessment of Delinquent Charges What happens if I don’t pay by the due date? If approved, the proposed assessment, including the delinquent balance and applicable fees will be added to your 2021 property taxes and will bear interest at the rate of 3.5 percent from Dec. 1, 2020 to Dec. 31, 2021 (a period of 13 months). The proposed assessment roll is on file at the city clerk’s office. Please note: If this account is certified for a second consecutive year, a $75 administrative penalty fee will also be assessed to the account. This fee only applies if there are consecutive years of nonpayment. Why are there late fees? The city was experiencing a high number of delinquent utility bills, and many accounts were certified in consecutive years. Fees were updated and adopted by the city council and are charged to cover administrative costs. If I don’t pay my bill by the due date, will the administrative charges and penalty be included in the amount sent to Hennepin County? Yes, all administrative charges and penalties will be added to the delinquent balance when sent to Hennepin County for certification to 2021 property taxes. How can I appeal? The city council will hold a public hearing on October 19, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. During the meeting, members of the public may call 952.562.2888 to provide verbal objections to the city council. Calls will be taken in the order they are received. Written appeals may be sent to: Sharae Sledge Finance Manager 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Note: written appeals must be received by 4:30 p.m. on October 19, 2020. The city would like to avoid the certification process, as it adds additional costs to all parties. We want your participation, so if you have a barrier to attending or participating (hearing, language, mobility, etc.) call the city at 952.924.2111 (TDD 952.924.2518) at least three days in advance of the meeting to request assistance. Please note: You will not receive an additional notice on this matter. If you have any questions, please call the utility billing at 952.924.2111. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 6b) Page 5 Title: Assessment of delinquent charges Resolution No. 20 - ____ Levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts, tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations Whereas, the city council has heretofore determined by resolution or ordinance the rates and charges for water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the city and has provided for the abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations to a home or business shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and Whereas, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served under Section 18-153, Section 18-154, Section 22-37, Section 32-34, Section 34-52, Section 34-56, Section 32-97, Section 32-153, Section 34-111, and Section 34-112, of the St. Louis Park City Code and Minnesota Statutes Sections 415.01, 366.011, 366.012, 429.061, 429.101, 443.015, 410.33, and 444.075; and Whereas, Finance has prepared a list of unpaid charges to be certified against each tract or parcel of land served by utilities , or against which tree removals, false alarms, mowing and citations remain unpaid at the close of business on Nov. 2, 2020; and Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that said assessment rolls are hereby adopted and approved, there is hereby levied and assessed against each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts respectively therein, and the city clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said assessment roll for amounts unpaid at the close of business on Nov. 2, 2020, to the Auditor of Hennepin County for collection of the assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of 3.5 percent per annum; and It is further resolved that said unpaid charges are hereby certified to the Auditor of Hennepin County, and the chief financial officer is hereby authorized to deliver said list of unpaid charges to the Auditor of Hennepin County, for collection in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 2, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Beltline Blvd . SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project no. 4022-2000, approving the staff recommended concept designs and authorizing the design of final plans. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the installation of the sidewalks and trails identified in this report? Summary: Connect the Park is the city’s capital improvement plan to install additional bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails that provide local and regional connectivity, improve safety and accessibility, and enhance overall community livability. This project focuses on improving pedestrian connections in the Beltline Blvd Southwest light rail transit (SWLRT) station area, specifically Ottawa Ave nue and Lynn Avenue in the Triangle neighborhood, and Beltline Boulevard in the Wolfe Park neighborhood. The engineering department has been working on the preliminary design and associated public engagement process for more safe and comfortable connections to the future Beltline Blvd SWLRT station using $560,000 in federal funds. To do this, staff recommends a new multi-use trail on Beltline Boulevard , a new multi-use trail and sidewalk repairs on Ottawa Ave nue , and new sidewalk on Lynn Avenue. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2021 Capital Improvement Plan and will be paid for using federal funds and general obligation bonds. The total cost estimate for the project is $2.04 million. The federal funding in the amount of $560,000 will be used to offset a portion of the construction costs. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Overview map Study session report – Sept. 29, 2020 (pgs. 100 – 321) Public hearing report – Oct. 5, 2020 (pgs. 97 – 106) Recommende d concept de sign graphics Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) Discussion Purpose: The purpose of the Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements project is to complete gaps in the pedestrian network in order to provide safer and more comfortable connections to the Beltline Blvd LRT station. The street segments (Beltline Boulevard, Ottawa Avenue, Lynn Avenue) are within comfortable walking/rolling distance of the Beltline station. The project also intends to either remove or mitigate barriers to access the pedestrian network. The largest barrier in accessing the station area is County Road 25, a four-lane highway that expands to six lanes at Beltline Blvd. Additional barriers include utility poles obstructing sidewalks, and lack of separation between vehicles and pedestrian users. Background: A report (attached) was delivered to city council at the Sept. 29 study session explaining the project in detail. The report explains the city policies that helped inform the design process, the regional solicitation for federal funds, the community engagement process, and the design concepts. Another report (also attached) was delivered to city council at the Oct. 5, 2020 public hearing with additional financial and public comment information. Recommended design concepts: • Ottawa Avenue – Multi-use trail o Remove west sidewalk and install a multi-use trail, narrowing Ottawa Avenue o Fix any sections of the existing sidewalks to meet ADA requirements o Remove on-street parking o Narrow west approach of 31st Street o Narrow west approach of CR 25 frontage road o Surmountable curbs • Lynn Avenue – One-way southbound with wider sidewalks o Retain on -street parking o Narrow Lynn Avenue to accommodate sidewalks o Complete east sidewalk o Widen west sidewalk to account for utility poles o Install curb extension at CR 25 frontage road o Install pedestrian connection to cross CR 25 at future signal o Surmountable curbs • Beltline Boulevard – Multi-use trail o Install multi-use trail on the west side with boulevard and trees o Crosswalk at 35th Street in coordination with Beltline Bikeway proje ct (4021- 2000) Public hearing comments: Attached in the public hearing report are the comments community members submitted for the public hearing record up to Sept. 30, 2020. No further comments were received by staff after Sept. 30, 2020. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) Public hearing question: During the live comments at the Oct. 5 public hearing, one question was brought up to staff to provide further information: How will (or won’t) this project affect existing retaining walls on Ottawa Avenue? On the west side, there are a couple flagstone retaining walls. These walls are behind the existing sidewalk and we shouldn’t be touching them as a part of the construction activities. This is the same case for the retaining wall on the east side of Ottawa Avenue, as it is also behind the existing sidewalk. It is the city’s right of way policy to remove and re place retaining walls when they conflict with the recommended project improvements. Financial considerations: This project leverages $560,000 in federal funding to help offset construction costs. The construction cost estimate includes a 20% contingency as more work needs to be done to understand soil conditions, water runoff requirements, and other project conditions. CIP Engineer’s estimate Construction cost $1,299,350 $1,344,000 Engineering and administration $324,837 $498,115 Right of way $0 $211,610 Total $1,624,187 $2,045,085 Funding sources Federal funds $560,000 $560,000 General Obligation bonds $1,064,187 $1,485,085 Total $1,624,187 $2,045,085 The engineering and administration cost for this project is greater than estimated in the CIP. This is due to the following: • The federal funding for this project was originally fiscal year (FY) 2020. Which meant the project would have had to start construction in 2020. Due to delays in the SWLRT construction project, Beltline redevelopment project coordination/ delays, and staff workload, we would have been unable to meet this timeline. As a result, we applied for an extension to FY 2021. This added $19,805 to the cost. • This is the first project that we have completed public engagement on since the beginning of the pandemic. To ensure that we were able to conduct a thorough public process, we had the consultant conduct additional outreach. This added about $10,000 to the project engineering cost. • The cost includes using a consultant for contract administration. This additional cost, $150,000, would be reduced to around $50,000 if the work was done by city staff. However, at our existing staffing level and workload, we would be unable to assign staff to this work in 2021. • The CIP did not include right of way costs. During the development of the preliminary plans, it was determined that to build the Beltline trail with a grass boulevard separating the trail from the street, additional permanent right of way would need to be acquired. This separation allows for room to plant trees and greater separation from the street, City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) providing better user experience. In addition, temporary easements are needed to address the steeper slopes near Park Glen Road. Operation and maintenance costs This project creates new city infrastructure. With new infrastructure, there will be operation and maintenance costs. Annual operational costs include snow removal, pavement sweeping, and general upkeep. In addition, there are long-term costs associate d with the replacement of sidewalks and trails. As final plans are developed, staff will work on identifying the new incremental costs and will present them when this project is presented to council for final plan approval and authorization for bids. Sche dule: The project schedule is as follows: Study council written report Sept. 29, 2020 Public hearing Oct. 5, 2020 Approve preliminary layout and authorize final plans Oct. 19, 2020 Approve final plans and order ad for bid March 2021 Construction Summer – Fall 2021 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000) Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No. 4022-2000, approving the staff recommended concept designs, and authorizing the design of final plans for Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements. Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Transportation Engineer related to the Beltline Blvd SWLRT Pedestrian Improvements – Project No. 4022-2000; and, Whereas, this project consists of a trail on Beltline Blvd from County Road 25 to 36th Street and a trail on Ottawa Ave from Minnetonka Blvd to County Road 25; and, Whereas, this project also consists of additional sidewalk on Lynn Ave from Minnetonka Blvd to the N County Road 25 Service Road and sidewalk repairs on Ottawa Ave from Minnetonka Blvd to County Road 25; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1.The Project Report regarding Project No. 4022-2000 is hereby accepted. 2.Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3.The preliminary concept designs for trails and sidewalks are hereby approved. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk PROJECT LOCATION ?úA@ GzWX kj Minnetonka Boulevard C o u n t y R o a d 2 5 36th Str eet WestHighway 100 SouthOttawaAvenueSouthPark CenterBoulevardRaleigh Avenue South29th StreetWest 35thStreetWest H ig h w ay 7 Hi g h w a y 7 Kipling AvenueSouth33rd StreetWestWebster Avenue SouthMonterey DriveVernonAvenueSouthToledo Avenue SouthLakeStreetWestToledo Avenue South36th Street West36thStreetWestHighway 729thStreetWest 361/2Street WestLynnAvenueSouth31st StreetWest WebsterAvenueSouthM ontereyCourtJoppa Avenue SouthSalem Avenue SouthRaleigh Avenue SouthQuentin Avenue SouthPrinceton Avenue SouthSalemAvenueSouthWebster Avenue SouthUtica Avenue South35th Street We st 35th Street W est Park Glen R o a dRaleighAvenueSouthNatchezAvenueSouthSalem Avenue SouthUticaAvenueProject: STLOU 153156 Beltline/CSAH 25 Pedestrian Improvements(S.P. 163-291-008)2016 Regional Solicitation Print Date: 6/24/2020 St. Louis Park, Minnesota This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.Path: P:\PT\S\Stlou\153156\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\Maps\Beltline_CSAH25.mxdI Figure 1 DAKOTA COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY SCOTT COUNTY CARVER COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY City of St. Louis Park ProjectLocation Proposed Project Beltline LRT Stationkj City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000)Page 6 3115 OTTAWA AVE S4810 MN-73050 OTTAWA AVE S3044 OTTAWA AVE S3040 OTTAWA AVE S3036 OTTAWA AVE S3032 OTTAWA AVE S3028 OTTAWA AVE S3024 OTTAWA AVE S3020 OTTAWA AVE S3004 OTTAWA AVE S 3057 OTTAWA AVE S3053 OTTAWA AVE S3049 OTTAWA AVE S3041 OTTAWA AVE S3007 OTTAWA AVE SYESHIVA OF MINNEAPOLIS PARK APARTMENT TOWERS MENORAH PLAZA THE EDGE OF UPTOWN APARTMENTSFrontage RoadC o u n t y R o a d 2 5 Ottawa Ave 31st StreetMinnetonka Boulevard11' TRAVEL LANE 11' TRAVEL LANE 5' SIDEWALK 11' TRAIL 10' TRAIL 10' TRAIL TIMEANYPARKINGNO TIMEANYPARKINGNO TIMEANYPARKINGNO TIMEANYPARKINGNO TIMEANYPARKINGNO TIMEANYPARKINGNOTIMEANYPARKINGNOTIMEANYPARKINGNOTIMEANYPARKINGNOTIMEANYPARKINGNO11' TRAVEL LANE 11' TRAVEL LANE 4' BOULEVARD 11' TRAIL 5' SIDEWALK TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL PROJECT EXISTING ROUTE 17 TRANSIT STOP 54 WEEKDAY PASSENGERS IN 2019 EXISTING ROUTE 17 TRANSIT STOP 56 WEEKDAY PASSENGERS IN 2019 OTTAWA AVE. TRAFFIC DATA: AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY MOTOR VEHICLES - 4000 (2017) DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 7 (2013 - COUNTED AT CSAH 25) DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 52 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)Chris Bower6/24/2020 3:14 PMA:\A0132_S_Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Study\PRODUCTION\CADD_JS_has_out\PLANS\A0132_P_ST_Ottawa_Trail.dwgOttawa Ave. Trail Option - 7/8/2020 Ottawa Ave. - Existing Ottawa Ave. - Proposed Preliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionCity council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000)Page 7 Beltline Blvd. - Trail ConceptBeltline Blvd. - Existing Beltline Blvd. - Trail Concept - 7/8/2020 Preliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionCity of St. Louis Park Hennepin County, MN BELTLINE BLVD PAR K G L E N R D W 35TH STFIT STUDIOS 3520 BELTLINE BLVD MELROSE CENTER 3525 MONTEREY DR KENWOOD GYMNASTICS CENTER, MANI MELA, INSTANT INSTALL 3440 BELTLINE BLVD BASS LAKE PRESERVE PARK GLEN APARTMENTS 4501 PARK GLEN RD CITIZENS BANK 5000 W 36TH ST T BELTLINE BLVDPROPOSED 10' MULTI-USE TRAIL EXISTING 9' MULTI-USE TRAIL METRO TRANSIT ROUTE 17F ALL STRIPING NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT CROSSING TO EAST TRAIL City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000)Page 8 Minnetonka Boulevard3042 LYNN AVE3040 LYNN AVE3036 LYNN AVE3030 LYNN AVE3016 LYNN AVE4501 MINNETONKA BLVD 4421 MINNETONKA BLVD 4330 MN-7 SERVICE RD3031 LYNN AVE3023 LYNN AVELynn Ave F r o n t a g e R o a d C o u n t y R o a d 2 5 TIMEANYPARKINGNOONE WAYTIMEANYPARKINGNONEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT 8.5' SIDEWALK 8' PARKING LANE 10' TRAVEL LANE 6' SIDEWALK ONE WAYONE WAYNEW TRAIL ALONG SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT STOPLYNN AVE. TRAFFIC DATA: DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 2 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.) DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 50 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)Chris Bower6/24/2020 3:14 PMA:\A0132_S_Beltline Blvd Pedestrian Study\PRODUCTION\CADD_JS_has_out\PLANS\A0132_P_ST_Lynn_OneWaySB.dwgLynn Ave One-Way (Southbound) Option - 7/8/2020 Lynn Ave. - Existing Lynn Ave. - Proposed Preliminary Concept - Not for ConstructionTIMEANYPARKINGNOTIMEANYPARKINGNOLYNN AVE. TRAFFIC DATA: DAILY BICYCLE COUNT - 2 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.) DAILY PEDESTRIAN COUNT - 50 (2017 - COUNTED AT MINNETONKA BLVD.)3042 LYNN AVE4330 MN-7 SERVICE R3040 LYNN AVE3036 LYNN AVE3030 LYNN AVE3031 LYNN AVE3023 LYNN AVE3016 LYNN AVE4501 MINNETONKA BLVD 4421 MINNETONKA BLVD NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND CROSSWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT 8.5' SIDEWALK 8' PARKING LANE 10' TRAVEL LANE 6' SIDEWALK NEW TRAIL ALONG SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT STOP9/18/2020 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Beltline Blvd. SWLRT pedestrian improvements – (4022-2000)Page 9 Meeting: City council Meeting date: October 19, 2020 Action agenda item: 8b Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave . at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a yield sign s on Vallacher Avenue at Quentin Ave nue and Princeton Ave nue . Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. The request was considered against the city’s traffic control policy. Summary: Staff received a request for stop signs at the intersection of Vallacher Ave nue and Princeton Avenue in January 2020. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop or yield signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have signs installed. The yield sign criteria for sightlines and traffic volumes were met for this intersection. The criterio n for crash history was not met. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 meeting and recommended the installation of a yield sign on the east and west approaches of Vallacher Avenue at Quentin Avenue and Princeton Ave nue . Two letters were sent out to the surrounding area (689 in total), looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. 16 total comments were received, with most in support of the recommendations. 7 of the comments requested stop signs instead of yield signs. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $600 and will come out of the general operating budget. Yield signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Map Resolution Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. Discussion Background: Staff received a request for stop signs at the intersection of Vallacher Ave nue and Princeton Avenue in January 2020. Due to winter conditions, traffic requests received during the winter are not evaluated until May. Also, due to COVID-19, the stay at home order this spring meant that traffic volumes were lower this year. As a result, there was a delay in evaluating these requests. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of traffic control signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have traffic controls installed. The yield sign criteria for traffic volumes and sightlines were met for this intersection. The criterion for crash history was not met. Stop signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs don’t slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Meaning, stop signs are not an effective traffic calming measure to decrease overall vehicle speeds on a street segment. Compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. Places, where people have a false sense of security (an assumption that vehicles will stop or yield) and vehicles don’t stop or yield, are a safety hazard. Stop signs also create traffic noise and higher carbon dioxide emissions due to vehicles slowing down, idling, and starting back up again. Due to these potential impacts, the city takes traffic control requests seriously and completes a thorough review of the intersection, using established industry standards to develop recommendations. Traffic committee: The traffic committee is an internal employee workgroup made up of the engineering, operations, police, and community development departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic requests from across the city and makes recommendations on possible ch anges. Any official changes to traffic controls or parking restrictions are ultimately approved by the city council. The traffic committee discussed this intersection at the June 2020 committee meeting and recommended installing a yield sign on the east and west approaches of Vallacher Ave nue at Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue. Princeton Avenue at Vallacher Ave nue is a four-way intersection with no existing traffic controls. Quentin Avenue at Vallacher Ave nue is a three -way intersection with a driveway on the west approach and no existing traffic controls. Stop or yield signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has 3 or more approaches and where one of the following conditions exist. In this case, two of the conditions were met for both intersections. • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 a day. Result: According to a GPS analysis, more than 2,000 people enter the intersection a day. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three -year period City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. Result: Crash history showed one reported accident within the last three years that could have been prevented by the installation of a yield or stop sign. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were observed to be partially obscured from the east and west approach es, not allowing road users the ability to adequately apply the normal right of way rule when stopping or yielding. Community feedback: In July 2020, a letter was sent to the surrounding area (689 addresses) asking for comme nts and feedback on the recommended sign installation. Staff received 16 comments from community members: • I think adding Yield signs at these locations would be very beneficial to the community. I often drive through this area and find that many folks don’t look before they drive through the intersections because they don’t know for sure who has the right-of- way. Thank you for your work on this and I hope the city will be able to move forward with installing the yield signs”. – Angela Tschida, 4801 Excels ior Blvd • “I think instead of a yield sign they should be stop signs. Anything is better than nothing though”. – Jenny Robb, 4820 Vallacher Ave • I feel the proposed yield signs will be a beneficial addition to the neighborhood. As a frequent traveler on those streets, I support the addition of the traffic signs for the safety of myself and others in our community. It would be helpful in instructing drivers on who has the right of way & remind folks to slow down”. – Whitney McDowell, 4801 Excelsior Blvd • “I completely support the need for adding yield signs along Vallacher. We have so many young children in our neighborhood that we need to be protecting. In addition, I think we need to somehow make the stop sign east bound on 40th street and 40th lane and Natchez more prevalent. I witness 2 to 3 cars a week running that stop sign and sometimes unintentional claiming they did not see the sign. Living at the intersection of 39th and Natchez, I strongly believe we should have a cone or slow children sign in th e middle of the three way intersection. We have 15 children on the block that are under the age of 12 and car traffic is a concerns for all of us. Thank you for your work to improve the safety in our wonderful neighborhood”. – Merrie Marinovich, 3918 Natchez Ave • “…an emphatic YES from me to this idea - SO many near-miss accidents at both intersections because the "uncontrolled intersection" idea at both intersections is just not working - maybe it worked in another era, when you could trust people to actually slow down and look both ways before proceeding at full speed through an uncontrolled intersection, but it clearly does not work anymore - WAY too many people barrel through both uncontrolled intersections without looking, and it's clearly a real hazard City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. “In fact, just a few months ago I was sitting on my couch when I heard a terrible CRUNCH and there WAS a big collision at the Vallacher/Princeton intersection right outside my house, as, wouldn't you know it, someone barreled right through on Princeton without even checking for cross-traffic on Vallacher and it was a pretty bad crash “ONE MORE ISSUE - I wish the city would crack down on the street parking that occurs right at the intersection of Quentin and Vallacher - people park right next to Quentin on Vallacher, particularly on the south side of Vallacher - it makes for an extremely hazardous situation as people turning from Vallacher to Quentin can't see around those parked cars on the south side of Vallacher, right next to Quentin - I know for a fact that you are not allowed to park that close to an intersection and common sense ought to tell them not to do it and that it creates a terrible hazard for drivers, impeding their sightline - but they keep doing it and the city never seems to ticket the parked cars - maybe a crackdown or two with some tickets could solve the problem? I hope the city will consider doing so - it's a disaster waiting to happen there, as are the uncontrolled situations at both of those intersections “Thanks for paying attention to this - I was really glad to get the mailer today and hope the city will take action, install yield signs at both intersections, and crack down on the street parking too close to Quentin on the south side of Vallacher”. – Dan Israel, 4821 Vallacher • “I think these would be very helpful. These 2 intersections are confusing and it would be good”. – Maura Howard, 4815 Vallacher Ave • “You know I'm in favor of the yield signs! People are constantly speeding through that intersection without looking and it's very concerning”. – Abby Cooper, 4810 Vallacher Ave • “We applaud any decision to decrease traffic speed in our neighborhood. We support the city's traffic committee's recommendation to install YIELD signs on the east and west approaches of Vallacher Avenue at Princeton Avenue and Quentin Avenue”. – Kelly Bunte and Chris Holden, 3936 Natchez Ave • “I live on Vallacher and would be very in favor of the two intersections having the YIELD signs installed as proposed. My wife and I moved in 3 years ago and the way people go through those intersections without even looking both ways is concerning. Having a visible indication of who has right of way would be helpful and hopefully a reminder for folks to ensure the intersection is safe to cross. Please install them ASAP”. – Michael Baill, 4810 Vallacher Ave • “For the proposed YIELD signs on the July 31, 2020 notice at Vallacher/Quentin and Vallacher/Princeton, We would like to suggest the following: 1. “Vallacher/Princeton – It appears on the provided map that the YIELD signs are on Vallacher. These YIELD signs may be best moved to Princeton. Princeton is a short, City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. 2 section street between Excelsior Blvd and 40th Ave. The intersection in question is the only one on the street. Due to the brevity of these sections, the normal flow of traffic on Princeton is already slow. It makes more sense to impede that traffic flow at the intersection rather than affecting the Vallacher flow which is a longer stretch. 2. “The YIELD sign at the West end of Vallacher at Quentin could be changed to a STOP sign. A STOP sign will halt traffic to the free -flowing Quentin better than a YIELD sign. I can't imagine anyone leaving Vallacher to turn onto Quentin (left or right) without stopping anyways since you're coming off a long stretch to a T in the road with Wells Fargo directly in front of you. “Note, no matter what, we still yield at both these intersections because we know they are busy areas. But we think the idea of some signs is a good idea”. – Michael and Christine Wells, 4814 Vallacher Ave • “I live at 4709 Vallacher Ave and drive through these intersections multiple times a day. I'd like there to be stop signs instead of yield at these intersections. I have two little boys and it is always dangerous to be going through these intersections. I'd recommend stop signs instead of yield”. – Rob Uhlemann, 4709 Vallacher Ave • “I support the addition of traffic control signs at both of these intersections. Although adding Yield signs would be very helpful, I would like to see STOP signs at these intersections! “I have a son with Down syndrome named Ian. These intersections are a hazard to Ian every signal day. Because Ian does not understand how to properly be on the lookout for approaching cars at intersections in his neighborhood, STOP signs are critical for his safety. “Please consider STOP signs at these intersections”. – Anne O’Brien, 4825 W 40th St • “I was wondering why the are not going to be stop signs. Stop signs would really slow down traffic. Vallacher does not have a side walk in that area and people are walking in the street. I would hope you would consider a stop sign. “Also you need the same at the intersection of 39th and Lynn. There needs to be a stop sign. Why do we have an intersection with no sign there?” – Joe Klosterman • “There should be a stop sign, not yield sign at that intersection and a stop sign for traffic coming out of the bank parking lot. I have witnessed one of the accidents that happened at that intersection where a car was T-boned and flipped over on it's side and slid several feet. Where I have my work desk, my window overlooks that intersection, and I see what happens there M-F 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. What you don't know about is all of the near misses that happen on a daily basis. “Cars need to come to a complete stop to check to see if there is any traffic coming along Quentin. Cars are moving really fast a lot of the time to make the light at Excelsior. City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. “I am fearful that the next accident will have a car going up onto one of the sidewalks and injuring a person walking. Since COVID there are tons more walkers now-a-days”. – Kim Erickson, 3951 Quentin Ave • “The sign leaving the Wells Fargo parking lot should be a full STOP sign; they are not yet on a road and would never have the right of way, even should a car be approaching on Vallacher from the East (where the yield, as shown, seems appropriate). Parking lots do not always have signage in those instances but a yield seems misapplied. “Did the study show which of Vallacher and Princeton have more traffic? Vallacher is the longer and busier street in this location, so should likely have the right-of-way? The proposed orientation seems backwards. ESPECIALLY considering the employees of the auto shop on Princeton/Excelsior go screaming through the neighborhood”. – Mark Enlow, 4721 Vallacher Ave • Call summary: I approve of installing yield signs, it will help slow vehicles down. – Robert Rhinehart, 4713 Vallacher Ave In October 2020, a second letter (689 addresses) was sent out informing people that this item was to appear in front of the city council. The letter again asked for additional comments and feedback. No comments were received. TS 734 location map QUENTIN AVE SEXCELS I O R B L V D EXCELS I O R B L V D VALLAC H E R A V E PRINCETON AVE S3961 39753976 4904 4907 4910 4901 4825 4920 4825 4900 4960 3964 4916 3951 3981 4901 48214920 3965 4911 4824 4921 4814 3980 3971 4810 4911 4820 4821 4959 3965 4811 4951 4995 4956 4915 0 100 20050 Feet Legend Property lines Proposed yield signs City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave.Page 7 City council meeting of October 19, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: Traffic Study 734 – Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave. at Quentin Ave. and Princeton Ave. Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize yield signs on Vallacher Ave at Quentin Ave and Princeton Ave Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the intersection of Vallacher Ave and Princeton Ave; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of yield signs on the east and west approaches on Vallacher Ave at Princeton Ave and Quentin Ave; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.I nstall yield signs on the east and west approaches of Vallacher Avenue at Princeton Avenue 2.Install yield signs on the east and west approaches of Vallacher Avenue at Quentin Avenue Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Oct. 19, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk