Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/06/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionA,f St. Louis Park MINNESOTA irwc 61fl�- in iho FSvk AGENDA JUNE 11, 2018 6:00 p.m. SKATE PARK RIBBON CUTTING — Carpenter Park 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION — Community room Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning June 18 and June 25, 2018 2. 6:35 p.m. 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update 3. 6:55 p.m. 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation 4. 7:55 p.m. Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements 5. 8:40 p.m. Minimum wage ordinance 8:55 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 9:00 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 6. Urban Park Apartments proposed expansion at 3601 Phillips Parkway Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. St. Louis Park MINNESOTA LIFE- u: do Fri. Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning June 18 and June 25, 2018 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 11, 2018 Discussion item: 1 Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for a special study session on June 18 and for the regularly scheduled study session on June 25, 2018. Policy consideration: Does the,council agree with the agendas as proposed? Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for a special study session on June 18 and the regularly scheduled study session on June 25, 2018. Also attached to this report is the study session prioritization and tentative discussion timeline. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda —June 18 and June 25, 2018 Study session prioritization and projected discussion timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 1) Title: Future study session agenda planning June 18 and June 25, 2018 June 18, 2018 6:00 p.m. —Special study session — Community room Tentative discussion items Page 2 1. Comprehensive annual financial report for year ended 12/31/2017 - auditors discussion and review—Administrative services (30 minutes) The city auditor (Redpath and Company) will present the annual audit results and opinion issued on the 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 2. 2019 budget discussion —Administrative services (45 minutes) Staff has started working on the 2019 budget and will review with council the upcoming items. This discussion is to allow council to provide direction on the goals and strategic initiatives with 2019 budget preparation and to inform staff about other information they may want to have during the upcoming process. June 25, 2018 (Councilmember Rog out) 6:30 p.m. —Study session — Council chambers Tentative discussion items 1. Future study session agenda planning—Administrative services (5 minutes) Building readiness ordinance — Information resources (45 minutes) Staff will present information related to the following policy question: Does council wish to move forward with ordinances that enhance building readiness by requiring broadband capacity, 800 MHz public safety radio coverage, and security cameras in parking facilities— all related to the concept of Smart Cities? 3. Overview of debt modeling and financial forecasting —Administrative services (120 minutes) Staff will review the various forecasting and modeling tools that are used in the long-range financial planning of the city. During our last rating call with Standard and Poor's, we shared with them the tools that we use and would like to review with council. Communications/meeting check-in —Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 4. May 2018 monthly financial report Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 1) Title: Future study session agenda planning June 18 and June 25, 2018 Study session prioritization and projected discussion timeline Page 3 Priority Discussion topic Comments Date Part of preserving Walker building 4 Revitalization of Walker Lake area reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, Ongoing design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18 4 Zoning guidelines for front -facing 7/9/18 buildings with windows not papered over 4 Finalize council norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; deferred to a TBD future study session on 5/21/18 4 Establish a local housing trust fund Discussed 5/14/18. Staff following up. TBD 4 Policy for funding nonprofits Discussed on 4/9/18. Staff following TBD up. 4 Communication to human rights Postponed (B&C discussion) TBD commission on council expectations 3 Develop a youth/senior advisory Postponed (B&C discussion) TBD 3 Historical society space Part of Walker building discussions on Ongoing 8/28/17, 11/20/17, 12/11/17, 4/23/18 3 Retail/service/liquor stores size 6/11/18 3 Minimum wage ordinance 6/11/18 3 Design guidelines - New home construction 7/9/18 3, Discuss and evaluate our public process 7/23/18 3rd Qtr. 3 Living streets policy 2018 3 Crime free ordinance/affordable housing Discussed 5/14/18. Staff following up. TBD strategies 3 Easy access to nature, across city, starting TBD with low-income neighborhoods SEED's community greenhouse/resilient TBD 2 cities initiative 2 Bird friendly glass TBD 2 Dark skies ordinance (light pollution) TBD 2 Community center project TBD 2 Revitalization of Monkey Island TBD ? Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18. Staff following up. TBD ? Utility ricin olic TBD 4 Raequity/inclusion Presented 6/4/18 Completed 4 Creating an affirming Pnvirenrnpnt for tr.nsgender inai,;a -a's D rnsn ntnrG/-/= Completed The -Nest Priority key 5 = High priority/discuss ASAP 4 = Discuss sooner than later 3 = Discuss when time allows 2 = Low priority/no rush 1= No need to discuss St. Louis Park MINNESOTA 6xPn ,cwc LIEF in Ino Fri_ Executive summary Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 11, 2018 Discussion item: 2 Recommended action: Continued support of city work on multi -family and parks recycling education. Policy consideration: Does the work done by Minnesota GreenCorps follow council policy direction? Summary: Minnesota GreenCorps is an environmentally focused AmeriCorps program coordinated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). In early 2017, the City of St. Louis Park was selected as a host site for the 2017 - 2018 service year, with a service project focused on multi -family recycling, curbside organics and parks recycling. In September, GreenCorps member Xinci Tan started with the city. While the City of St. Louis Park has had a robust curbside recycling program for many years, approximately 40% of the city's population lives in multi -family properties. Over the years, the city has received inquiries and occasional complaints from residents about recycling in multi -family buildings. With the solid waste staff member addition two years ago, the city has begun more work with multi -family buildings, including updating ordinance requirements for recycling and education. However, basic data was lacking to comprehensively evaluate recycling in multi -family buildings. Xinci's focus has been to collect information to better address and. support multi -family recycling into the future. Xinci scheduled site visits to collect baseline information on existing recycling capacity, recycling education, container placement/location and resident engagement. During these visits, property managers were also given resources, such as Hennepin County recycling guides and posters, information about mattress recycling and opportunities for recycling grants. Xinci has visited over 70 properties, accounting for 88% of all multi -family units in the city. In conjunction with data collection, Xinci has developed a recycling workshop to educate and directly engage multi -family managers and residents on what should go into recycling, organics and trash. Financial or budget considerations: We have been using resources in the current budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion; Recycling Workshop Pre -survey; Hamilton House Recycling Sort.lnfographic; Parks What NOT to Recycle Guide Prepared by: Xinci Tan, Minnesota GreenCorps Member Emily Barker, Recycling Specialist Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update Discussion Background: Minnesota GreenCorps is an environmentally focused AmeriCorps program coordinated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), which places members with organizations around the state to spend a year of service addressing critical environmental issues, while gaining experience and learning valuable job skills. While the City of St, Louis Park has had a robust curbside recycling program for. many years; approximately 40% of the city's population lives in multi -family properties. Over the years, the city has received inquiries and occasional complaints from residents about recycling in multi -family buildings. With the solid waste staff member addition two years ago, the city has begun more work with multi -family buildings, including updating ordinance requirements for recycling and education. However basic data was lacking to comprehensively evaluate recycling in multi -family buildings. The Minnesota GreenCorps project was designed as a way to collect information to better address and support multi -family recycling into the future. In addition to improving recycling participation, addressing contamination is key to doing education in multi -family buildings. A 2017 Hennepin County study found that, by weight, only 76% of what multi -family residents throw into the recycling is actually recyclable. The remaining 24% are contaminants such as plastic film, household hazardous waste (HHW), textiles and organics. This study confirms what many in the solid waste industry have known for years; that recycling contamination is higher and recycling education is much less robust in multi -family buildings than in single-family homes. Present considerations: ii lftl a-Sx tWdm t.$)t KIM & [InV oMc�, t. a'liM4t?.? fll , 0.11% Figure 2.4: Hennepin County.Multllemily Recycling Composition Multi -family: In September 2017, Minnesota GreenCorps member Xinci Tan obtained a list of St. Louis Park multi -family properties and their corresponding property managers. Xinci scheduled site visits to collect baseline information on existing recycling capacity, recycling education, container placement/location and resident engagement. During these visits, property managers were also given resources, such as Hennepin County recycling guides and posters, information about mattress recycling and opportunities for recycling grants. As of June 2018, Xinci has visited over 70 properties, accounting for 88% of all multi -family units in the city. The majority of property managers in the city were willing and even enthusiastic about improving their residents' opportunity to recycle; however, there were a few who were reluctant or unreceptive. Although some managers claimed that very few of their residents recycle, most properties had full or overflowing recycling containers. To continue this work into Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update the future, solid waste staff has worked with the Inspections department's staff to incorporate recycling checks into the annual multi -family inspection process. In conjunction with data collection, Xinci has developed a recycling workshop to educate and directly engage multi -family managers and residents on what should go into recycling, organics and trash. To gauge resident knowledge, Xinci developed a survey that participants complete at the beginning of the workshop and again at the end of the workshop. The picture -based survey (see Attachment 1) is designed to quickly gauge the resident's knowledge about recycling and the resulting added knowledge gained from the presentation. Using pictures has proved to be an effective way to quickly collect this data for all participants, regardless of age or language skills. To date, Xinci has led six workshops, with a total of 61 attendees. She has also trained several Recycling Champions to lead these workshops so that the multi -family resident education will continue after her Minnesota GreenCorps service year ends. Additionally, Xinci has written recycling newsletters for multi -family residents, created surveys to better understand resident recycling habits and conducted a sort of the recyclables at Hamilton House (a city -owned apartment building). In May 2018, Xinci and Emily conducted a sort of recyclables at Hamilton House, the city -owned multi -family property on Nevada Avenue. They sorted two full carts of recycling and found 12.9% contamination, which is low compared to the 24.0% rate published in the Hennepin County study. There is room for improvement (St. Louis Park's curbside recycling program has a 5.5% rate), and staff will continue to provide education to residents. In particular, plastic bags must be kept out of recycling and recyclables should be placed un -bagged into the cart or dumpster (see Attachment 2 for images of contamination found). Organics: Throughout the year, Xinci has assisted in various capacities on multiple projects for the City's organics program. In the fall, she helped to identify two new locations for the City's multi -family organics drop -sites. She also promotes the drop -site program to property managers during multi -family site visits by giving them a flyer they can post in common areas. After the Recycling Association of Minnesota (RAM) received a grant from Hennepin County to increase curbside organics participation, Xinci has helped to organize meetings and prepare outreach materials for tabling events. For International Compost Awareness Week, she created and gave a presentation on organics and helped to organize the compost facility tour. Parks: Xinci helped to create a Parks Guide: What Not to Recycle (see Attachment 3). This handout will be given to anyone who reserves a city -owned facility or park shelter. On it are common contaminants found in parks recycling bins, such as plastic utensils, plastic bags/film and wrapping paper. The flip side of the guide lists tips for waste prevention, so party planners have some ideas for a more environmentally friendly gathering. Next steps: In her remaining months of service, Xinci will complete a few more parks -related projects. In late June, Xinci and city staff will complete a sort of the recyclables from ten city parks to better quantify the contaminants. Training has also been scheduled for seasonal park and recreation staff, so they are aware of what can and cannot be recycled. Xinci will also be analyzing and optimizing recycling bin locations in parks. Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update Page 4 Recycling Workshop answer key ///st.NE50TA Park To gauge workshop effectiveness, help us by completing a survey. Please circle the items that you would recycle at your building. COutulntc _ j .re rte,efs 1 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update St. Louis Park MINNESOTA Page 5 Day of sort: May 21, 2018 Comparison of contamination levels: 5.5% 12.9% 24.0% Plastic bags/film 2.3% Organics 2.7% Polystyrene Plastic -lined paper Hazardous waste Durable goods Reusable glass Other trash 0.1% 0.1% 1.0% 0.6% 2.0% 4.0% l Education is still needed to make sure recyclables are left loose. Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update Page 6 Parks Guide: What NOT to R le 4r ,,,,,1111ir Thank you for being a steward of the parks and helping us limit contamination in the recycling. Please do not put these items in parks recycling bins. Disposable cups/bowls/plates (foam or paper) Tablecloths (plastic or cloth) ANY food ,I,',j �x"r Plastic utensils and straws Tissues, paper napkins, and paper towels Plastic bags/wrap/film ANY diapers Decorations (balloons, banners, paperweights, string lights, ribbons, etc.) Wrapping paper/tissue Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: 2017 - 2018 Minnesota GreenCorps project update Page 7 Tips for Waste Prevention Bring reusable plates and utensils Consider using plates and utensils from home that can be washed and reused after your gathering. Although this alternative requires a little more effort, it will help to save money and resources like paper, water, and energy needed to make single -use items. Buy in bulk Instead of buying individually -wrapped candies and snacks, consider larger bags that can be shared or look to your grocery store's bulk bin section. Less packaging often means a lower cost as well as less waste generated. The same idea applies to drinks: Try bringing a pitcher of water or lemonade and reusable cups instead of buying a pack of bottles. Wrap gifts in cloth Scarves, towels, and furoshiki cloths are excellent for wrapping items. They work well for both boxy. and Irregular shapes. There is no need for tape, glue, or bows, and when the present has been opened, the recipient also has a pretty cloth to keep) Reuse and repurpose decorations Before buying from a party store, save yourself some money and ask if friends or family have decorative items hiding in their attics or garages. For example, tablecloths, place card holders, chalkboards, and center- pieces are easily adaptable to different parties. AW St. Louis Park MINNESOTA Er�<,-on<c 61fE ir, iP�r r Executive summary Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 11, 2018 Discussion item: 3 Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Recommended action: None at this time. This is the first in a series of discussions regarding the development of the rules for conduct of municipal elections. Policy consideration: Does the city council agree with following the Minneapolis model for the development of the rules for conduct of municipal elections? Summary: On May 7, 2018 the city council approved an ordinance amending the city charter by adding Sec. 12.08 related to voting method. The adoption of this ordinance was the first step in a process to implement ranked -choice voting for municipal (mayor and city council) elections. Once a city makes the decision to use an alternative voting method they are required to provide the rules that will govern the administration of municipal elections. The primary reason forthis is that state election law does not speak to the rules for the administration of elections using'the ranked -choice method. The city is obligated to ensure that rules for the conduct of municipal elections continue to meet all state and federal election laws where applicable. The city attorney will be in attendance to provide an overview of the legal requirements of the . ordinance, the process for adoption, and the specific topics the ordinance will need to address. Because ranked -choice voting is already used in Minneapolis, a model ordinance for the rules of conduct for municipal elections is readily available and should be closely followed given that these rules have already been deemed legal by the courts and they have been tested and proven to work in conjunction with the current voting equipment and administrative procedures in place in Hennepin County. Equity and inclusion considerations: in each discussion regarding the rules for the conduct of municipal elections, staff will include information that will allow for reflection through the lenses of equity, inclusion, and accessibility. This will provide an opportunity to consider how the rules that are developed will impact the populations that we serve. In this instance the scope of consideration goes beyond racial equity and encompasses overall equity and accessibility to voting. Elections impact many different groups and populations including and not limited to: seniors, non-english speaking voters, first-time voters (newly 18), new residents to St. Louis Park, new citizens, military and overseas voters, candidates for office, and election judges. These considerations and discussions will provide the foundation for staff's continued work on the actual implementation of ranked -choice voting and will guide the development of materials for communications, marketing, education and outreach. Financial or budget considerations: Money will be allocated in the 2019 budget for the resources needed for the implementation and administration of ranked -choice voting. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion schedule; Minneapolis city code chapter 167 Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Discussion schedule MEETING DATE MEETING TYPE DISCUSSION TOPICS JUNE 11 STUDY SESSION • BASIC DEFINITIONS • LEGAL OVERVIEW OF PROCESS • MINNEAPOLIS MODEL REVIEW JULY 9 STUDY SESSION • BALLOT FORMAT L • NUMBER OF RANKINGS AUGUST 6 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION • TABULATION OF VOTES • WRITE-IN VOTES • METHOD OF RESOLVING TIES SEPTEMBER SPECIAL STUDY SESSION • COUNTING PROCEDURES • VOTING SYSTEMS • TESTING OCTOBERI SPECIAL STUDY SESSION • REPORTING RESULTS • POST ELECTION REVIEW • RECOUNTS NOVEMBER 13 STUDY SESSION • REVIEW COMPLETED DRAFT ORDINANCE NOVEMBER 19 REGULAR MEETING • ORDINANCE 1ST READING DECEMBER 3 REGULAR MEETING 1 • ORDINANCE 2N0 READING Other items of note: • The schedule above may be adjusted as needed. In order to reach the target for use of RCV in the 2019 municipal election, this outline of the schedule above is important. Once we have the technical pieces in place and an ordinance approved, we will need to run a "test' of our new RCV systems in mock election environments to ensure successful use. This will involve development of test ballots, programming of machines, training of a group of election judges, and staff training on the counting methodology. Testing would need to be done the first quarter of 2019 if the system is going to be used in the fall of 2019. We understand if more time and process is needed, the target may change to 2021. We have had and will continue to hold meetings with League of Women voters and FairVote MN in order for them to assist us as we move forward with education and outreach efforts. Staff is also working on a robust communications plan that encompasses the breadth of materials we will need for voter outreach and education efforts, staff and election judge training, candidate training, absentee voting, and Election Day supplies. As you are aware, we will only use RCV in local municipal elections for mayor and council. To avoid confusion and due to the upcoming election this fall, we want to make sure that our voters are aware of what system they will be using in 2018 when they go to the polls (not RCV). Therefore, aside from regular updates on the development of the rules by council, detailed and targeted outreach and education materials on RCV and our municipal election will be provided after the election this fall and beginning 2019. Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 3 5/15/2018 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 167. - MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS: RULES OF CONDUCT 167.10. - Applicability. This chapter applies to all municipal elections. All provisions of City.Charter and Minnesota Statutes pertaining to elections also apply, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this chapter. (2008 -Or -028, § 1,4-19-08) 167.20. - Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section: Batch elimination means a simultaneous defeat of multiple continuing candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected. Chief election official means the city clerk and includes the city clerk's designee(s). Continuing candidate means a candidate who has been neither elected nor defeated. Declared write-in candidate(s) means a candidate(s) who has filed a written request in accordance with section 167.45. Exhausted ballotmeans a ballot that cannot be advanced under section 167.60(c)(2) or section 167.70(c) . Highest continuing ranking means the ranking on a voter's ballotwith the lowest numerical value for a continuing candidate. Mathematically eliminated by the next higher current vote total comparison means either: (1) The candidate could never win because his or her current vote total plus all votes that could possibly be transferred to him or her in future rounds (from candidates with fewer votes, tied candidates, surplus votes, and from undeclared write-in candidates) would not be enough to equal or surpass the candidate with the next higher current vote total; or (2) The candidate has a lower current vote total than a candidate who is described by (1), Mathematically eliminated by the sum of all ranked -choice votes comparison means: (1) Forsingle-seatelections: The candidate could never win because the sum of all ranked - choice votes for that candidate is less than the highest current.vote total. (2) Formultiple-seat elections: The candidate could never win because the sum of all 1/12 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) .Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 4 5/15/2018 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances ranked -choice votes for that candidate would not be enough to equal or surpass the current vote total(s) of any of the top "x" continuing candidate(s) with the highest current vote total(s), where "x" equals the number of seats yet to be filled for the office. Mathematically impossible to be elected means: (1) Mathematically eliminated by the next higher current vote total comparison. (2) Mathematically eliminated by the sum of all ranked -choice votes comparison. Maximum possible threshold means the number of votes sufficient for a candidate to be elected under a first ranked choice tabulation under sections_167.60 b and_167.70(b). In any given election, the maximum possible threshold equals the total ballots cast that include votes, undervotes, skipped rankings, and overvotes for the office, divided by the sum of one (1) plus the number of offices to be filled, then adding one (1), disregarding any fractions. Maximum Possible Threshold = ((Total ballots cast that include votes, undervotes, skipped rankings, and overvotes for the office)/(Seats to be elected + 1))+.1, with any fractions disregarded. An overvote occurs when a voter ranks more than one (1) candidate at the same ranking. Partially defective ba/lotmeans a ballot that is defective to the extent that the election judges are unable to determine the voter's intent with respect to the office being counted. Ranked -choice voting means an election method in which voters rank candidates for an office in order of their preference and the ballots are counted in rounds and votes, or fractions thereof, are distributed to candidates according to the preferences marked on each ballot as described in sections 167.60 and 167.70 of this chapter. Ranked -choice voting tabulation center means one (1) or more locations selected by the chief election official for the tabulation of votes. Rankingmeans the number assigned, by a voter to a candidate to express the voter's preference for that candidate. Ranking number one (1) is the highest ranking. A ranking of lower numerical value indicates a greater preference for a candidate than a ranking of higher numerical value. Repeat candidate rankingoccurs when a voter ranks the same, candidate at multiple rankings for the office being counted. Round means an instance of the sequence of voting tabulation steps established in sections -1 67.60and 167.70 of this chapter. Skipped ranking occurs when a voter leaves a ranking blank and ranks a candidate at a subsequent ranking. 2112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018. (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 5 5/15/2018 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances Sum of all ranked -choice votes means the sum of all votes for a candidate at every ranking for an office, including all repeat candidate rankings. Surplus means the total number of votes cast for an elected candidate in excess of the threshold. Surplus fraction of a vote means the proportion of each vote to be transferred when a surplus is transferred. The surplus fraction is calculated by dividing the surplus by the total votes cast for the elected candidate, calculated to four (4) decimal places, ignoring any remainder. Surplus fraction of a vote = (Surplus of an elected candidate)/(Total votes castfor elected candidate), calculated to four (4) decimal places, ignoring any remainder. Threshold means the number of votes sufficient for a candidate to be elected. In any given election, the threshold equals the total votes counted in the first round after removing partially defective ballots, divided by the sum of one (1) plus the number of offices to be filled, then adding one (1), disregarding any fractions. Threshold = ((Total votes cast)/(Seats to be elected + 1)) + 1, with any fractions disregarded. Transfer value means the fraction of a vote that a transferred ballot will contribute to the next ranked continuing candidate on that ballot. The transfer value of a vote cast for an elected candidate is calculated' by multiplying the surplus fraction by its current value, calculated to four (4) decimal places, ignoring any remainder. The transfer value of a vote cast for a defeated candidate is the same as its current value. Transferable vote means a vote or a fraction of a vote for a candidate who has been either elected or defeated. Totally defective ballot means a ballot that is defective to the extent that the election judges are unable to determine the voter's intent for any office on the ballot. Undeclared write-in candidate means a write-in candidate who is not a declared write-in candidate. An undervote occurs when a voter does not rank any candidates for an office. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18- 08; 2009 -Or -102, § 1, 10-2-09; 2013 -Or -055, § 1, 5-24-13; 2015 -Or -065_, § 1, 7-24-15) 167.30. - Ballots. (a) Ballot format. (1) When there are three (3) or more qualified candidates, a ballot must allow a voter to rank at least three (3) candidates for each office in order of preference and must also allow the voter to add write-in candidates. (2) A ballot must include instructions to voters that clearly indicates how to mark the ballot so as to be read by the election judges conducting the count, or if voting equipment is to be used, so as to be read by the voting equipment used to tabulate results. (3) A ballot must include instructions to voters that clearly indicate how to rank candidates 3112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 6 5/15/2818 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances in order of the voter's preference. (4) A ballot must indicate the number of seats to be elected for each office. (b) Mixed -election method ballots. If elections are held in which ranked -choice voting is used in addition to other methods of voting, the ranked -choice voting and non -ranked -choice voting elections must be on the same ballot if possible, with ranked -choice voting and non -ranked - choice voting portions clearly separated on the ballot. If placement of all offices to be elected cannot be placed on a single ballot, a separate ballot may be used for those offices to be elected using ranked -choice voting. The city may deviate from the standard ballot order of offices to allow separation of ranked -choice voting and non -ranked -choice voting elections. (c) Ballot format rules. The chief election official shall establish administrative rules for ballot format after a.voting mechanism has been selected. All rules shall be adopted in accordance with this section. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08; 2009 -Or -102, § 2,10-2-09; 2013 -Or -055, § 2, 5-24- 13) 167.40. - Ranked -choice voting tabulation center. The chief election official shall designate one (1) or more locations to serve as the ranked -choice voting tabulation center. Tabulation of votes must be conducted.as described in sections 167.60 and 167.70 of this chapter. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08; 2013 -Or -055, § 3, 5-24-13; 2015 -Or -065. § 2, 7-24-15). 167.45. - Write-in votes. A candidate for municipal office who wants write-in votes for the candidate to be counted as votes for the candidate must file a written request with the chief election official no later than seven (7) days before the general or special .election. The chief election official shall provide copies of the form to make the request. (2013 -Or -055, § 4, 5-24-13) 167.50. - Tabulation of votes; in general. (a) Precinct tabulation. When the hours for voting have ended and all voting has concluded, the election judges in each precinct shall record and post the number of votes at each ranking on the ballot. The election judges must then securely transfer all election night materials and ballots from the precinct to the location designated by the chief election official. Upon receipt, the election night materials and ballots shall be secured. (b) Notice of recess in count. At any time following receipt of materials per 167.50(a the chief election official may declare a recess. Notice shall be posted of such recess, which must include the date, time and location at which the process of recording and tabulating votes will'resume and the reason for the recess. (c) Recording write-in votes. At a time set by the chief election official, the judges of the election shall convene at a ranked -choice voting tabulation center to record the names and number 4112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 7 5M512018 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances of votes received by each declared write-in candidate. The number of votes received by undeclared write-in candidates will be recorded as a group by office. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18- 08; 2009 -Or -102, § 3,10-2-09; 2013 -Or -055; § 5, 5-24-13) 167.60. - Tabulation of votes; single -seat elections. (a) Applicability. This section applies to a ranked -choice voting election in which one (1) seat in an office is to he filled from a single set of candidates on the ballot. The method of tabulating ranked -choice votes for single -seat elections as described in this section must be known as the "single -seat single transferable vote" method of tabulation. (b) Firstranked choice tabulation. A first ranked choice tabulation shall, be done under this clause before a tabulation as described in clause (c). Afirst ranked choice tabulation will consist of a first round only. Under the first ranked choice tabulation, the vote total will be the sum of the number one (1) ranked votes. The maximum possible threshold must be determined. If the vote total for a candidate, other than an undeclared or a declared write-in candidate, is equal to or greater than the maximum possible threshold, that candidate is declared elected and the tabulation is complete. If the vote total for no candidate, other than an undeclared or a declared write-in candidate, is equal to or greater than the maximum possible threshold, a tabulation, as described in clause (c), shall be done. (c) Tabulation ofround(s). (1) Tabulation of votes at the ranked -choice voting tabulation center must proceed in rounds for each office to be counted. The threshold must be calculated. The sum of all ranked -choice votes for every candidate must be calculated. Each round must proceed sequentially.as follows: a. The number of votes cast for each candidate, as indicated by the highest continuing ranking on each ballot, must be counted. If a candidate, other than an undeclared write-in candidate, has a vote total that is equal to or greater than the threshold, that candidate is declared elected and the tabulation is complete. If no candidate, otherthan an undeclared write-in candidate, has a votetotal that is equal to or greaterthan the threshold, a new round begins and the tabulation must continue as described in clause b. b. At the beginning of the second round only, all undeclared write-in candidates and all candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated simultaneously. For rounds subsequent to the second round, all candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated simultaneously. Votes for the defeated candidates must he transferred to each ballot's next -ranked continuing candidate, except votes for candidates defeated in the final round are not transferred if, by their defeat, the number,of 5/.12 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 8 5115/2018 - Minneapolis, MN code of Ordinances continuing candidates is reduced to one (1). If no candidate can be defeated under this clause, the tabulation must continue as described in clauses. Otherwise, the tabulation must continue as described in clause d. C The candidate with the fewestvotes is defeated. Votes for the defeated candidate must be transferred to each ballot's next -ranked continuing candidate, except votes for candidates defeated in the final round are not transferred if, by their defeat, the number of continuing candidates is reduced to one (1). Ties between candidates with the fewest votes must be resolved by lot by the chief election official. The candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. d. The procedures in clauses a. to c. must be repeated until one (1) candidate reaches the threshold, or until only one (1) continuing candidate remains. If only one (1) continuing candidate remains, that continuing candidate must be elected. In the case of a tie between two (2) or more continuing candidates, the tie must be resolved by lot by the chief election official. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. Atied candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. When only one (1) continuing candidate remains after tie has been resolved by lot by the chief election official, that continuing candidate must be elected and the votes of the tied candidate chosen by lot will be retained. (2,) When a skipped ranking, overvote or repeat candidate ranking is encountered on a ballot, that ballot shall count towards the highest continuing ranking that is not a skipped ranking, an overvote or repeat candidate ranking. If any ballot cannot be advanced because no further continuing candidates are ranked on that ballot, or because the onlyvotes for further continuing candidates that are ranked on that ballot are either overvotes or repeat candidate rankings, the ballot shall not count towards any candidate in that round or in subsequent rounds for the office being counted. . (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08; 2009 -Or -102, § 4,10-2-09; 2013 -Or -055, § 6, 5-24-13; 2015 - Or -0.65, § 3, 7-24-15) 167.70, - Tabulation of votes, multiple -seat elections. . (a) Applicability. This section applies to a ranked -choice voting election in which more than one (1)seat in office is to be filled from a single set of candidates on the ballot. The method of tabulating ranked -choice votes for multiple -seat elections as described in this section must be known as the "multiple -seat single transferable vote" method of tabulation. (b) First ranked choice tabulation. Afirst ranked choice tabulation shall be done under this clause before a tabulation as described in clause (c). A first ranked choice tabulation will consist of a first round only. Under the first ranked choice tabulation, the vote total will be the sum of the number one (1) ranked votes. The maximum possible threshold must be 6112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) - Title: 2019 municipal elections; ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 9 5115/20i9 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances determined. If the number of candidates, other than any undeclared or declared write-in candidate, whose vote total is equal to or greater than the maximum possible threshold is equal to the number of seats to be filled, those candidates are declared elected and the tabulation is complete. If the number of candidates, other than any undeclared or declared write-in candidate, whose vote total is equal to or greater than the maximum possible threshold is less than the number of seats to be filled, a tabulation, as described in clause (c), shall be done. (c) Tabulation ofround(s). (1) Tabulation of votes at the ranked -choice voting tabulation center must proceed in rounds for each office to be counted. The threshold must be calculated. The sum of all ranked -choice votes for every candidate must be calculated. Each round must proceed sequentially as follows: a. The number of votes cast for each candidate for the current round must be counted. If the number of candidates, other than any undeclared write-in candidate, whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold is equal to the number of seats to be filled, those candidates who are continuing candidates are elected and the tabulation is complete. If the number of candidates, other than any undeclared write-in candidate, whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold is not equal to the number of seats to be filled, anew round begins and the tabulation must continue as described in clause b. b. Surplus votes for any candidates whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold must be calculated. c. At the beginning of the second round only, after any surplus votes are calculated but not yet transferred, all undeclared write-in candidates and all candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated simultaneously. For rounds subsequent to the second round, after any surplus votes are calculated but not yet transferred, all candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected must be defeated simultaneously. Votes for the defeated candidates must be transferred to each ballot's next -ranked continuing candidate, except votes for candidates defeated in the final round are not transferred if, by their defeat, the number of continuing candidates is reduced to the number of seats yet to be filled. If no candidate can be defeated under this clause, the tabulation must.continue as described in clause d. Otherwise, the tabulation must continue as described in clause a. d. The candidate with the largest surplus is declared elected and that candidate's surplus is transferred. A tie between two (2) or more candidates must be resolved by lot by the chief election official. The surplus of the candidate chosen by lot must be transferred before other transfers are made: The result of the tie resolution i7�� Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3), Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 10 5/15/2018 - Minneapolis, MN Cade of Ordinances must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. The transfer value of each vote cast for an elected candidate must be transferred to the next continuing candidate on that ballot. If no candidate has a surplus, the tabulation must continue as described in clause e.. Otherwise, the tabulation must continue as described in clause a: e. If there are no transferable surplus votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is defeated. Votes for a defeated candidate are transferred at their transfer value to each ballot's next -ranked continuing candidate, except votes for candidates defeated in the final round are not transferred if, by their defeat, the number of continuing candidates is reduced to the number of seats yet to be filled. Ties . between candidates with the fewest votes must be resolved by lot by the chief election official, and the candidate chosen by lot must be defeated. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a recount. f. The procedures in clauses a. toe. must be repeated until the number of candidates whose vote total is equal to or greater than the threshold is equal to the number of seats to be filled, or until the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of seats yet to be filled. If the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of seats yet to be filled, any remaining continuing candidates must be declared elected. In the case of a tie between two (2) or more continuing candidates, the tie must be resolved by lot by the chief election official. The result of the tie resolution must be recorded and reused in the event of a,recount. Candidates defeated under this clause in the final round will retain their votes. (2) When a skipped ranking, overvote or repeat candidate ranking is encountered on a ballot, that ballot shall count towards the highest continuing ranking that is not a skipped ranking, an overvote or repeat candidate ranking. If any ballot cannot be advanced because no further continuing candidates are ranked.on that ballot, or because the only votes for'further continuing candidates that are ranked on that ballot are either overvotes or repeat candidate rankings, the ballot shall not count towards any candidate in that round or in subsequent rounds for the office being counted. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08; 2009 -Or -102, § 5,10-2-09; 2013 -Or -055; § 7, 5-24-13; 2015 - Or -065 , § 4, 7-24-15) 167.75. - Ties resolved by lot. (a) Who resolves a tie by lot. The chief election official must resolve a tie by lot. (b) Notice to candidates with tied,votes. The chief election official must notify all candidates with tied votes that the tie will be resolved by lot, except those candidates who have not provided contact information that would allow notice under this section. This notice must be sent at 8112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 11 5/15/2018 - Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances least one (1) hour prior to resolving the tie by lot. The notice must be sent through a medium that would generally be capable of reaching a person within the one-hour period, such as face-to-face, a fax, an e-mail, an instant message, a text, a video chat, a telephone call, or a voicemail. The chief election official may consider the preference of each candidate for the medium through which the notice would be provided. The chief election official is not . required to confirm that the notice is received by a candidate before resolving a tie.by lot. A tie may be resolved by lot even though some or all of the candidates who have tied votes are not present. (c) Witnesses. The resolving of the tie by lot must be witnessed by two (2) election judges who are members of different major political parties. (d) Video. The resolving of the tie by lot may be recorded through any audio and visual recording technology. (e) Media. The chief election official may contact the media to view the chief election official resolve a tie by lot. (f) Procedures. The chief election official may establish written procedures for implementing this section. ( 2015 -Or -065 , § 5, 7-24-15) 167.80. - Reporting results. (a) Precinct summary statement Each precinct must print a precinct summary statement, which must minimally include the number of votes in the first ranking for each candidate. (b) Ranked -choice voting tabulation center summary statement. The ranked -choice voting tabulation center must print a summary statement, which must include the following' information: total votes cast; number of undervotes; number of totally defective and spoiled ballots; threshold calculation; total first choice rankings for all candidates; round -by -round tabulation results, including simultaneous batch eliminations, surplus transfers, and defeated candidate transfers; and exhausted ballots at each round. (c) Election abstract. The election abstract must include the information required in the ranked - choice voting tabulation center summary statement, with the addition of the number of registered voters by precinct, the number of same day voter registrations, and the number of absentee voters. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08) 167.90. - Recounts. (a) Required recounts. A candidate defeated in the final round of tabulation may request a recount of the votes cast for the nomination or election to that office if the difference between the final round vote total for that candidate and for a winning candidate is less than the percentage threshold as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36. In case of offices where two (2) or more seats are being filled from 9/12 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 12 5/15/2018 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances among all the candidates for the office, the percentage threshold difference, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36, is between the elected candidate with the fewest votes and the candidate with the highest final round vote total from among the candidates who were not elected. (1) Candidates shall file a written request for the recount with the city clerk. All requests shall be filed during the time for notice of contest of the election for which a recount is sought. (2) Upon receipt of a request made pursuant to this section, the city shall recount the votes for a municipal office at the expense of the city. (b) Discretionary candidate recounts. Candidates defeated in the final round of tabulation when the vote difference is greater than the difference required by section 167.90(a), and candidates defeated in an earlier round of counting, may request a recount in the manner provided in this section at the candidate's own expense. (1) The votes shall be recounted as provided in this section if the requesting candidate files with the city clerk a bond, cash, or surety in an amount set by the city for payment of the recount expenses. (c) Notice of contest. Time for notice of contest of election to a municipal office which is ,recounted pursuant to this section shall begin to run upon certification of the results by the governing body of the municipality. (d) Scope of recount. A recount conducted as provided in this section is limited in scope to the determination of the number of votes validly, cast for the office to be recounted. Only the ballots cast in the election and summary statements certified by the election judges may be considered in the recount process. (2008 -Or -028, § 1,4-18-08; 2009 -Or -102, § 6, 10-2-09; 2013 -Or -055, § 8, 5-24-13) 167.100. - Count procedures. The chief election official shall establish administrative procedures for the tabulation of votes in accordance with rules for counting the votes contained in sections 167.50. 167.60 and 167.70 of this chapter. (2008 -Or - 028, § 1, 4 -18 -08;2013 -Or -055; § 9, 5-24-13) 167.110. - Electronic voting systems. All provisions of Minnesota Statutes pertaining to electronic voting equipment systems apply, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this chapter. Any voting equipment system used to conduct an election under this. section must be authorized for use by the county auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 206.58. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08) 167.120. -Testing of voting systems. 10112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation. Page 13 5/15/2018 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances. .The chief election official shall have the voting system tested to ascertain that the system will correctly mark ballots using all methods supported by the system, and count the votes cast for all candidates and on all questions per Minnesota Statute Section 206.83. In addition to all requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 206.83, the equipment must be tested to ensure that each ranking for each candidate is recorded properly, and must be tested to ensure the accuracy of software used to perform vote transfers and produce results. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08) 167.130. - Post-election review ofvotingsystem and tabulation of results. (a) Selection of test date; notice. Post-election review is not required fora hand count election. At canvass, the. chief election official must select by lot the offices and precincts to be reviewed and set the date, time and place for the post-election review. (b) Scope and conductof test. The post-election review must be conducted, in public, of a sample of ballots cast for at least one (1) single -seat ranked-choice,voting election for city council, if applicable, and one (1) multiple -seat ranked -choice voting election for either park board or board of estimate and taxation, if applicable. (c) Single seat test. At canvass, the chief election official shall select, by lot,.a total of two (2) precincts. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the election shall conduct a hand count of ballots cast for the one (1) or two (2) offices of council member. Using procedures called for,in section 167.100 of this chapter and accompanying rules, the judges shall count and record the ballots cast.. (d) Multiple seat test. At canvass, the chief election official shall select, by lot, a total of two (2) precincts. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the election shall conduct a hand count of ballots cast for either the office of park board or the office of board of estimate and taxation, also to be determined by lot. Using procedures called for in section 167.100 of this chapter and accompanying rules, the judges shall count and record the ballots cast. (e) Standard of acceptable performance by votingsystem. A comparison of the results compiled by the voting system with the results compiled by the judges of election performing the hand count must show that the results of the electronic voting system differed by no more than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36, from the hand count of the sample tested. Valid votes that have been marked by the voter outside the vote targets or using a manual marking device that cannot be read by the voting system must not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met the standard of acceptable performance. (f) Additional review if needed. Additional review(s) maybe required as follows: (1) Additional precinct review. If a test under clause (c) or (d) reveals a difference greater than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 11112 Study Session Meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: 2019 municipal elections: ranked choice voting planning and implementation Page 14 5 /1 512 01 8 Minneapolis, MN Code of Ordinances 204C.36, in at least one (1) precinct of an office, the chief election official must immediately publicly select by lot two (2) additional precincts of the same office for review. The additional precinct review,must be completed within two (2) days after the precincts are selected and the results immediately reported to the county auditor. (2) Additional office review. If the additional precinct review also indicates a difference in the vote totals that is greater than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36, in at least one (1) precinct of an office, the chief election official must conduct a review of the ballots from all the remaining precincts in the office being reviewed. This review must be completed no later than two (2) weeks after the canvass. (g) Report of results. Upon completion of the post-election review, the chief election official must immediately report the results to the county auditor and make those results public. (h) Update of vote totals. If the post-election review under this section results in a change in the number of votes counted for any candidate, the revised vote totals must be incorporated in the official resultfrom those precincts. (i) Effect on votingsystems. If a voting system is found to have failed to record votes accurately and in the manner provided by this chapter, the voting system may not be used at another election until it has been approved for use by the county auditor, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 206;58. In addition, the county auditor may order the city to conduct a hand recount of all ballots cast in the election. 0) Penalties to voting equipment system vendor. If the voting system failure is attributable to either.its design or to actions of the vendor, the vendor is liable for the cost of a hand recount ordered per -section 167.130(i) and is liable for additional penalties imposed per agreement between the city and the vendor. (2008 -Or -028, § 1, 4-18-08; 2009 -Or -102, § 7, 10- 2-09; 2013 -Or -055, § 10, 5-24-13) 167.140. - Deadline for primary campaign.reports pursuantto Minn. Stat. § 3836.048. For the sole purpose of filing primary campaign reports pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 383B.048, subd. 1, the city adopts the primary election date for municipal primaries as determined by Minnesota Statutes during city municipal election years. Primary campaign reports will be due one (1) week prior to this date, as provided in Minn. Stat. § 38313.048, subd. 1, as if a primary were being held for such elective offices, notwithstanding the elimination of primary elections for city municipal offices, (2009 -Or -052, § 1, 7-17-09; ;2015 -Or -065. § 6, 7-24-15) Editor's note—.Ord. No. 2015-0r-065 , § 6, adopted July 24, 2015, retitled the catchline of § 167.140 from "Primary date for campaign reports pursuantto Minn. Stat. § 3836.048" to read as herein set out. 12112 ,f/ St. Louis Park IAINN ES 0 Y A . Wf6 ut d o 130 - Executive summary Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 11, 2018 Discussion item: 4 Recommended action: No formal action is required at this time. Staff will present preliminary research and recommendations on potential zoning map and zoning code amendments to limit the sizes of certain commercial uses and in certain areas, and request further direction from the council. Policy consideration: 1. Does the city council support referring staff's rezoning proposals to the planning commission for review and recommendation? 2. Does the city council support referring the proposed size limitations within C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed -Use zoning districts to the planning commission for review and recommendation? 3. Does the city council want to address the size, concentration, or number of liquor stores in C-2 Districts through the liquor license regulations? Summary: During the city council study session on February 20, 2018, city staff were directed to consider options for limiting the size of businesses within commercial districts through zoning regulations in an effort to avoid "big box" and "junior box" stores and, in certain areas, promote smaller businesses. Staff identified commercial areas where large retail stores may be inconsistent with city goals. To address the issue and restrict the size of some uses within identified districts; staff recommends: 1. Rezoning some properties from C-2 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed -Use, or other district 2. Adding additional performance standards to the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district, Mixed -Use, and possibly other districts. Financial or budget considerations: None Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; Graphic—Approximately Relative Sizes of Businesses; Map — C-2 Areas to Consider Rezoning Prepared by: Joseph Ayers -Johnson, Community Development Intern Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements Discussion Background: During the city council meeting on February 20, 2018, staff was directed to consider options for limiting the size of businesses within commercial districts through zoning regulations in an effort to avoid big box and junior box stores in certain areas and promote smaller businesses. Some of the concerns expressed by council members that guided staff's research include the following: • According to the city zoning map, the length of Excelsior Blvd, especially at Excelsior & Grand through to the Ellipse area, allows for big box liquor stores. This area is intended to be walkable and pedestrian -friendly. Large stores are not conducive to that vision and are contrary to the concept of what the city wants to create. • Concerns were expressed about the concentration of liquor stores in the Knollwood area. • Interest was expressed, but no consensus, to establish a maximum size for liquor stores. • It was the consensus of the council to consider limiting the size of businesses within the C-2 General Commercial zoning district through zoning regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Limiting the size of retail establishments in certain parts of the city is consistent with both the 2030 and draft 2040 Comprehensive Plans, which include goals aimed at promoting human -scaled buildings and urban environments that are well - integrated into surrounding neighborhoods, and creating, preserving, and revitalizing neighborhood commercial nodes and corridors that provide essential neighborhood services, unique neighborhood identity, and gathering opportunities. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan also encourages efficient and compact redevelopment and promotes small businesses. The directive is also consistent with St. Louis Park's livable community principles, which includes among other things, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods and human -scaled development. Discussion: Staff gathered information on the size and type of all existing commercial uses in St. Louis Park, and formulated the following proposals: 1. Rezoning select properties from C-2 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed -Use, or other. 2. Adding additional performance standards to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and MX Mixed Use districts that limit the size of some commercial uses. Rezoning: The C-2 General Commercial zoning district supports regional retailers and more intense development. Additionally, liquor stores are generally only allowed in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district. They have also been allowed a few Planned Unit Developments (PUD), including Trader Joe's and Fresh Thyme. In contrast, the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district provides for low -intensity, service- oriented, commercial uses for surrounding residential neighborhoods. Limits are placed on the type, size, and intensity of commercial uses in C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to ensure and protect compatibility with adjacent residential areas. Rezoning from C-2 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, MX Mixed Use or other district would also further limit areas in the city where liquor stores may locate. Liquor Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements stores are allowed only in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district, and in some Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). They are not permitted in the C-1 Neighborhood zoning district or MX Mixed Use districts. If the use and size of lots and buildings are a concern, the city can identify where it wants to establish neighborhood -compatible commercial areas, and consider rezoning those that are currently zoned C-2 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed -Use or other more appropriate zoning district. Rezoning will require a process of open communication with property owners, and therefore will require significant effort and time to complete. The zoning map at the end of this report indicates areas staff suggest the city consider to rezone from C-2 General Commercial to another category. Adding additional performance standards to C-1 and MX districts: The C-1 and MX zoning districts tend to have smaller lot sizes, and are less likely to develop with large uses. Nonetheless, before beginning the rezoning process, adjustments could also be made to the C-1 and MX districts performance standards to further define and limit the size of uses. The C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district uses Intensity Classification measures as a way of limiting the size of buildings, however, a business of any size and intensity can be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as long as it meets specified conditions. To strengthen the ordinance, address the council's concerns, and reinforce the intent of the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district, staff suggests exploring a maximum business size of 10,000 sq. ft. for retail and service uses. As shown in the chart below, there are few businesses in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district that exceed 10,000 sq. ft., which is a more appropriate scale for a district aimed at fostering neighborhood retail nodes and corridors. Grocery stores are highly sought after retail services and may warrant more space. A new land - use category could be created for grocery stores, which staff suggests permitting up to 10,000 sq. ft.; and up to 20,000 sq. ft. with a CUP. CONSIDERATIONS: As with any zoning change, there are perhaps unintended consequences that should be considered: 1. Liquor stores are not allowed in the C-1 and MX zoning districts. Rezoning C-2 properties to another category will further limit available locations where liquor stores can be located, and may further concentrate new stores in the remaining C-2 General Commercial zoning districts. 2. As the chart indicates below, there are few businesses in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district that would become non -conforming if a 10,000 sq. ft. maximum business size limit was established. However, it may prevent existing business from growing and expanding beyond 10,000 sq. ft. in that district. Study session meeting. of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements Size Distribution of C-1 Businesses 80 73 70 60 N cn 50 W Q! C 40 CO 30 it 20 10 0 400-5,000 11 1 s,001-10,000 10,000+ Square Footage 3. The majority of businesses located in the C-2 General Commercial district that are proposed to be rezoned are less than 10,000 sq. ft. in size. Therefore, rezoning to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial may be a good fit. As noted earlier, existing businesses over 10,000 sq. ft. that are rezoned to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial would become legally non -conforming. As such, they would be allowed to continue to operate in the current capacity, but would not be allowed to expand. Additionally, three existing liquor stores could be made non -conforming by the suggested rezoning shown on the map at the end of this report. 180 160 140 N C! 120 N ut CJ 100 C 80 3 CO 60 U 40 �zu no Size Distribution of C-7 Businesses 158 61 41 500-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,000+ Square Footage Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements Page 5 4. While there are many small businesses in shopping centers, these smaller businesses often rely upon the visits generated by larger anchor stores. This is a primary reason staff does not propose size limits in the C-2 district, and why they should be also be thoughtfully considered in C-1 and MX districts, as well. Other Considerations: Although the above proposed zoning changes could potentially impact the size and location of liquor stores, they do not directly limit the number, size, and concentration of liquor stores specifically. If the council determines that it wants to address the number, size, and concentration of off -sale liquor stores specifically, the most effective means in which to do so is through the liquor license ordinance. The following three methods to limit off -sale liquor stores have been discussed by council previously, but consensus was not reached on any: 1. Address the concentration of .off -sale liquor stores by setting a minimum distance between licensed stores, i.e. 1,000 feet between stores. 2. Address the number of liquor stores in the city by setting a maximum on the number of liquor licenses issued in St, Louis Park (permanently), i.e. maximum of 13 licenses. 3. Address the size of liquor stores by limiting their size, i.e. a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. Below is a table which identifies the existing liquor stores, their location and size. Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensed Establishments Fresh Thyme Liquor Address 4840 Excelsior Blvd. Development, Shopping area Excelsior & Grand Sq Ft 1,187 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 near Knollwood Mall 1,850 Trader Joe's #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 Cub Liquor 537016th Street W West End 3,400 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave s 4,100 Top Ten Liquors 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 Texas -Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 Knollwood Liquor - 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 Lunds & Byerly's Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 Costco Wholesale #377 -5801 W 16th St West End 6,900 MGM Wine & Spirits 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8.891 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West End 9,000 Next Steps: 1. Planning commission review of proposed C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district regulations —Two to three months 2. Rezoning properties from C-2 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial —six to 24 months The rezoning process will require numerous meetings with property owners and could begin after changes are approved to the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district. Additional time, may be required for properties proposed to be rezoned from C-2 General Commercial to Mixed -Use or other district, where the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan land use designation. The process for those parcels may need to wait until after the 2040 comprehensive plan update is effective in April 2019. Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements Approximate Relative Sizes of Businesses Page 6 Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Retail, service and off -sale liquor store size requirements C-2 Areas to be Considered for Rezoning HWY 394 pw ke�a ceaa IL IL LD MV C-2 to Rezone C-2 to Remain 0 E N a Page 7 D Minnetonka Blvd pi PN 25 i *�- �L N ,// St. Louis Park MINNESOTA F a+¢rir rv:o WfE of i'e F'irk Executive summary Title: Minimum wage ordinance Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 11, 2018 Discussion item: 5 Recommended action: Provide time for council to discuss minimum wage ordinance. Policy consideration: Is a minimum wage ordinance something the city council is interested in researching? Summary: The council wanted time on the agenda to talk about a minimum wage ordinance. There is an opportunity to take time to study this since the Citizens League is undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the minimum wage initiative raised in St. Paul. Staff has been following this and it may be helpful wait until that study has been completed before we do anything else. Last week council spent a significant amount of time discussing racial equity and inclusion with Alicia Sojourner, Racial Equity Coordinator. Some of the discussion centered around how decisions are made on policy, priorities, sense of urgency and inclusion. Attached is information from the study session that may be helpful when discussingthis topic. Financial or budget considerations: To be determined. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of June 11, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: Minimum wage ordinance Discussion Page 2 Background: Last week council spent significant time in the study session with Alicia Sojourner, Racial Equity Coordinator on policy, priorities, sense of urgency and inclusion. At this study session, council has an opportunity to also frame this discussion through the racial equity and inclusion lens and to start to talking about impacts, voices that would need to be heard, outreach and other considerations. Below is information Alicia Sojourner provided to council and discussed at the study session: Racial equity observation — food for thought Sense of urgency • Continued sense of urgency that makes it difficult to take time to be inclusive, encourage democratic and/or thoughtful decision-making, to think long-term, to consider consequences • Frequently results in sacrificing potential allyship for quick or highly visible results (for example: allowing whites to share their need for urgency sacrificing interests of POCI in order to win victories for white people) Either/or thinking • Things are either/or, good/bad, right/wrong, with us/against US, RE/not RE • Makes it difficult to learn from mistakes or accommodate conflict • No sense that things can be both/and • Results in trying to simplify complex things (example: believing that poverty is simply a result of lack of education) • Creates conflict and increases sense of urgency, as people feel they have to make decisions to do either this or that, with no time or encouragement to consider alternatives, particularly those which may require more time or resources J// St. Louis Park MINNESOTA 6'i orlol,e WFIF n fig_ Fill:. Executive summary Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 11, 2015 Written report:6 Title: Urban Park Apartments proposed expansion at 3601 Phillips Parkway Recommended action: None at this time. Please contact staff with any questions or comments regarding this proposal. Staff anticipate a formal application in the next few weeks. Policy consideration: Does the project follow council policy related to housing development? Summary: Urban Park Apartments is a four story, 90 -unit apartment building located west of Target at Knollwood and east of the Sholom Homes campus. Kaas Wilson Architects, on behalf of Northshore Development Partners LLC, intends to apply for conditional use permit (CUP) and variances in order to construct a second, 61 -unit apartment building on the parcel. The new apartment building would contain a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units. This building would be four stories in height and similar to the existing apartment building in design and materials. The existing building was financed through the use of tax credits and contains 23 affordable units at 50% of area median income, with a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units. The proposed new building would contain all market -rate units and, since the developer is not requesting financial assistance from the city, would not be required to comply with the city's inclusionary housing policy. In addition to the new building, the plan would add outdoor amenity spaces for residents of both buildings, which include entry patios for both buildings, a pool, rooftop terrace, dog run, and North Cedar Lake Regional Trail wayside rest stop. The lot is currently guided RH High Density Residential, and is zoned RC High -Density Multiple Family Residential. Multi -family housing is allowed in this district with conditions. The proposed development requires a CUP, and based on the current development concept plans, would also require several variances. The variances arise out of the long and narrow shape of the parcel, which is former railroad right-of-way. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Staff does not anticipate a request for financial assistance from the city. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood -oriented development. Supporting documents: Development plans Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director fel fd a� i J M Urban Park Apartments F lr ,�y r .t rR'� ry i , '• 1 �+�.• %lei1 i 11 Sudv 5easlon Meeting of baae[O20M(Neon No. 6) Ude: Urban Paak ApaNnentSpopoSedeepanslon of 9601 PM1IIlips Pa(kWay V!EW FROM TRAIL LOOKING NORTH N Vn VI 5t,my5as51m MeatIng of lune ll. xltlg(Item Na, 61 TIIe: Urban PaM Apartments pmpowd eap a orlon at 3601 PhVIIps Pa"ay I'me< VIEW FROM PHILLIPS PMKWAY LOOKING SOUTH