HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/07/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 1, 2002
7:30 p.m.
There will NOT be an Economic Development Authority meeting.
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 17, 2002
b. Study Session Minutes of June 10, 2002
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are 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 audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to approve authorization of the execution of the MHFA Community
Revitalization Fund Program Fund Availability, Disbursement and Loan/Grant
Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Housing
2
Finance Agency for assistance in funding the pilot home improvement program
and the Contract for the Administration of the program with the Center for Energy
and Environment.
2. Motion to adopt an Ordinance Regulating Sale and Application of Phosphorous
Fertilizer, approve the summary and authorize summary publication.
3. Motion to designate American Liberty as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the construction of the building in Louisiana
Oaks Park at a cost not to exceed $376,586.
4. Motion to designate Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC as the lowest responsible
bidder for one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire
Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Central
States Fire Apparatus, LLC in the amount of $224,244.00.
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project
No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, ordering Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, approving plans
and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for entrance/identity signs at
Trunk Highway 169 and Cedar Lake Road and on the south side of Excelsior
Boulevard, east of Meadowbrook Road.
6. Motion to adopt the attached resolution regarding TS: 563 authorizing the
installation of a stop sign on south-bound Zarthan Avenue at W. 27th Street.
7. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002
b. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of December 6, 2001
c. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of February 21, 2002
d. Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002
e. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Request of Holle Construction on Behalf of Santorini’s Restaurant for a Major
Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for Seasonal, Evening and
Weekend Rooftop Use at 9920 & 9908 Wayzata Blvd.
Case No. 02-05-CUP
Recommende Motion to adopt a resolution approving the special permit
3
d Action: amendment subject to the conditions included in the resolution.
7b. First reading of zoning ordinance text amendments to allow garage sales in
residential districts
The proposed amendments would codify the existing policies for allowing garage
sales of household goods and crafts from all residentially zoned and residentially
used properties. Standards for signs and permitted locations would be clarified.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of ordinance to amend Chapter
36 of the Municipal Code to add “Garage Sales” as a temporary
use with a definition and standards and set a second reading for
Julie 15, 2002.
7c. First Reading of zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached
garages and other accessory structures/uses.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of the zoning ordinance text
amendments regarding detached garages and other accessory
structures/uses and set second reading for July 15, 2002.
8. Boards and Commissions
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
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.
4
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 17, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Director of Finance (Ms. McGann); Superintendent of
Engineering (Mr. Moore); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations
2a. Annual Human Rights Student Essay Presentation Contest, City Winner
Mayor Jacobs presented an award certificate to 8th grader Abigail Burkhart, who is the 2002
recipient of the annual Human Rights Student Essay Presentation Contest. The certificate is
presented by the City Council and the Human Rights Commission. In attendance for the
presentation were: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator, and Human Rights
Commissioners Herb Isbin, Paul Pyykkonen, and Patrick Rogers.
2b. Proclamation of Recognition for Ashley Tomoson
Mayor Jacobs presented a proclamation of recognition to Ashley Tomoson, and declared
June 17th to be Ashley Tomoson day. Ms. Tomoson began volunteering at the age of 10.
She worked with the Children First Initiative for many years, was a student member of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, a member of the Oak Park Village Task Force,
and volunteered in elementary classrooms.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of June 3, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special Study Session Minutes of June 3, 2002
5
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are 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 audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
An audience member, Mrs. Charney, asked about the status of Santorini’s request. Tom
Harmening, Director of Community Development, said Mr. Nicklow, owner of Santorini’s
Restaurant, requested additional time and his request is tentatively scheduled for July 1st.
4a. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
agenda.
The motion passed 7-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 7-0.
1. Designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $46,040.00 for
Curb & Gutter Annual Maintenance Repairs, Project No. 02-07 and Alley
Improvement Project-4000 block between Toledo & Utica Avenues, Project No.
02-12
2. Adopt Resolution No. 02-059 that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date
of July 15, 2002
3. Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Andrea Myklebust for
the fabrication and installation of the Allegory of Excelsior public artwork in Park
Commons East/Excelsior and Grand.
4. Approve Resolution No. 02-060 authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County for
Participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program in FY 2003- 2005.
5. Authorize execution of an agreement for engineering and architectural services
with Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass in an amount not to exceed $66,500 for
design work of the Rec Center roof over the West Arena.
6
6. Approve modifications and renovations requested by Sholom Community
Alliance.
7. Approve payment to School District #283 of $73,000 from Cable TV franchise
fees for the year 2002, comprised of an operations grant of $35,000 and a video
equipment grant of $38,000.
8. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 20, 2002
b. Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002
c. Housing Authority Minutes of May 8, 2002
d. Vendor Claims
5. Public Hearings--None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Refunding of 1994 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds.
Resolution No. 02-061
Finance Director Jean McGann said on June 17th, 2002, $6,210,000 in General Obligation
Tax Increment Bonds were put on the market, and USBankcorp Piper Jaffray was the lowest
bidder. The overall interest rate is 3.2%. Ms. McGann said the out-of-pocket costs for the
City was reduced from $80,000 to $20,000, which is included in the $355,000 savings.
City Manager Charlie Meyer said the City’s bond rating has been maintained at a high Aa1,
and Moody’s has given St. Louis Park a very favorable report on the City’s financial and
economical conditions.
Councilmember Nelson commented it is prudent fiscal management to maintain a fund
balance, have good cash flow, not borrow repeatedly, and to have a high bond rating with the
ability to borrow money for public improvement projects at a low interest rate.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
Resolution No. 02-061 awarding the sale of $6,135,000 general obligation tax increment
refunding bonds, series 2002.
The motion passed 7-0.
7b. First Reading of an Ordinance Regulating Sale and Application of Phosphorous
Fertilizer
7
Jim Vaughn said the ordinance will address the sale and application of phosphorous to
complement and strengthen recently passed State legislation, which is a ban on the use of
phosphorous fertilizers, except under certain circumstances. Mr. Vaughn said non-
phosphorous fertilizers will be available at retailers, and required notices for commercial
fertilizer applications, similar to those required when pesticide applications have been
applied, will be posted stating fertilizers have been applied to help enforce the phosphorous
ordinance.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt first
reading of an ordinance regulating sale and application of phosphorous fertilizer and to set
second reading for July 1, 2002.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Meyer said retailers who sell fertilizers received notices regarding the Council’s
consideration of the phosphorous ordinance.
7c. Traffic Study No. 561: Installation and rescinding of parking restriction on
Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th Street. Resolution No.’s 02-062 and 02-063
Superintendent of Engineering Carlton Moore reported the first action for this item is to
rescind several resolutions pertaining to parking restrictions, which are no longer applicable
due to the realignment of the roadway.
Councilmember Brimeyer said he will vote against this item because he thinks the 3-way
stop signs are unwarranted.
Councilmember Nelson agreed with Councilmember Brimeyer. Mr. Moore said the
justification for the 3-way stop signs is the crosswalk, i.e., the crosswalk is in the middle of
the radius on the curbed part of the road. Councilmember Nelson asked if the crosswalk can
be adjusted to be outside of the radius. Mr. Moore said it could be relocated.
Councilmember Sanger asked about parking restrictions on the north side of 16th Street
remaining in place until November 1, 2002 or until construction is completed; and that is one
addition she would make to the resolution. Councilmember Sanger requested the four
parking spaces on the west side of Zarthan Avenue, just north of 16th Street, be permitted
parking spaces in the evenings and during weekends as opposed to just being accommodated.
Mr. Moore said that is feasible. Councilmember Sanger would like to have the four
permitted parking spaces added to the resolution.
Councilmember Velick is concerned about the potential hazard the four parking spaces
would pose. Mr. Moore said the townhome development has 45 additional spaces available.
Staff thinks the four parking spaces would be hazardous.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone Avenue South, commented that drivers treat the stop sign,
located near TGIF, as a rolling stop sign and it is ineffective; he suggested drivers be allowed
8
to park near the Marriott, i.e., to park on the east side on Zarthan Avenue between the
frontage road and 16th Street, during non-business hours; and he thinks the parking
restrictions on the west side of Zarthan Avenue, between 16th Street and Cedar Lake Road,
should be lifted.
Councilmember Velick felt is would be appropriate to make an amendment asking Staff to
look at moving the crosswalk on Zarthan Avenue, by the frontage road, further south to
improve pedestrian safety.
Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Avenue South, said the eastbound stop sign is located 30-40
feet from the pedestrian crossing and if drivers roll through the stop sign, they will have
difficulties seeing pedestrians, and speed is a continuous problem.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-062 rescinding resolutions relating to parking restrictions on Zarthan
Avenue and West 16th Street.
Councilmember Sanger commented that in that resolution, the resolution which bans parking
on the north side of 16th Street will stay in effect until November 1, 2002, and will be
rescinded after that.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mayor Jacobs said the changes to the proposed parking restrictions, stop sign, and crosswalk
will now be addressed.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson to authorize parking restrictions as attached to the
report on Page 41 with amendments he will propose. For purposes of discussion, the motion
was seconded by Councilmember Sanger.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to amend
the resolution as follows: Item 4 of the resolution be deleted and replaced with a stop sign
on westbound Wayzata Blvd. and crosswalk warning signs on eastbound Wayzata Blvd. and
southbound Zarthan Avenue, i.e., crosswalk warning signs like those on Park Center Blvd..
by the Parkshore Place development.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Council would have the opportunity to revisit the parking
restrictions and removal of stop signs next year to see how traffic develops in this area after
the townhomes have filled up, and Mr. Scott replied yes.
Councilmember Latz commented that adequate lighting at the crosswalk is imperative so that
drivers may better see pedestrians. Councilmember Latz asked about pedestrian sight lines,
and Mr. Moore said it would be difficult for pedestrians to see approaching vehicles due to
landscaping and grades. Councilmember Latz thinks crosswalk warning signs further away
from the crosswalk would be beneficial.
9
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to further
amend the resolution to require the crosswalk to be moved to the south.
Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Moore for his opinion of moving the crosswalk south.
Mr. Moore said Staff recommends leaving the crosswalk at its current location.
Councilmember Latz agreed.
Councilmember Velick said if the City would provide adequate signage, she will withdraw
her motion regarding moving the crosswalk further south.
Councilmember Velick withdrew the motion to further amend the resolution by requiring the
crosswalk to be moved to the south..
The motion to amend the resolution as proposed by Councilmember Nelson passed 7-0.
Mayor Jacobs asked if there were any additional amendments to the original resolution, and
there were none.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she no longer felt it necessary to further amend the
resolution regarding approval of the four parking spaces on the west side of Zarthan Avenue.
The Council then voted on the original resolution as proposed by Councilmember Nelson.
(To clarify the record, the motion with amendments as passed above is here restated)
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No.02-062 rescinding resolutions relating to parking restrictions on Zarthan
Avenue and West 16th Street and to adopt Resolution No. 02-063 authorizing the restriction
of parking on the south side of the south frontage road of I-394, 200 feet east and 200 feet
west of Zarthan Avenue; the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from the south frontage
road of I-394 to 200 feet south of W. 16th Street; and no parking Monday to Friday (except
holidays on west side only) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from 200 feet south of W. 16th Street to 130
feet north of Cedar Lake Road and a stop sign for westbound traffic at the intersection of
Zarthan Avenue and the south frontage road of I-394, Traffic Study No. 561.
The motion passed 7-0.
7d. Appeal by Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson of Board of Zoning Appeals
Decisions of April 2 to Grant A Variance to Niaz Real Estate Corporation for a
Proposed Office at 4050 Brookside Ave.
Case #02-17-VAR
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah said Niaz Real Estate has applied for a
variance to allow vehicles to back into a public street at 4050 Brookside Avenue. Ms.
Jeremiah said if there is a valid easement, Mr. Niaz’ redesign would be able to accommodate
the easement with a driveway. The Applicant’s revision removes the residential unit from
10
the second floor, however, the building would still be two stories with three tuck-under
parking spaces. The second story would be able to accommodate an approximate 750 square
foot office. Ms. Jeremiah said Staff continues to work with the Applicant regarding building
setback.
Edwin Engelkes, 4058 Brookside Avenue, said he is also appearing on behalf of Carol
Engelkes. If Gail Goebel’s easement is valid, Mr. Engelkes questioned the ability of
homeowner Ms. Goebel, 4054 Brookside Avenue, to gain access to her backyard. Mr.
Engelkes continued, Ms. Goebel’s side door would become useless if the driveway on Mr.
Niaz’ property were to be raised.
Councilmember Latz stated the Council should avoid discussion regarding the validity of the
easement, and look purely at the question of whether the criteria for a variance have been
met. City Attorney Mr. Scott agreed.
Mr. Engelkes said it is dangerous to back out onto Brookside Avenue.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-064 approving the variance to allow vehicles to back into public street,
subject to conditions included in the resolution.
Councilmember Sanger thinks safety standards are being compromised. Councilmember
Sanger prefers to deny the variance and ask for the City Development Staff to look at
creative ways to perhaps rezone both properties and come up with better long-term land uses
for the properties.
Kim Hochstein, 5247 West Mill Road, Minnetonka, is the owner of the office building
immediately north of Mr. Niaz’ property. Mr. Hochstein expressed his concerns regarding
backing out; the potential grading of the Niaz property; the potential 18-inch gap between the
buildings, which would be impossible to maintain; and accessibility issues in regard to a
second floor with no elevator.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that the easement issue should not guide Council’s discussion,
however, he is concerned about the potential proximity of the two buildings of just 18 inches
and impaired site lines. Mayor Jacobs asked if Council could condition their approval of this
request on changing the building to offer better site lines and to provide for greater space
between the two buildings. Mr. Scott said the Council may place conditions on the request,
however, there must be some nexus or connection between the conditions and the variance.
There was discussion regarding building modification to allow better visibility. The
language on Page 50 of the Councilmembers’ packages was composed by Staff and it regards
a greater setback for Mr. Niaz’ building.
The motion passed 5-2. (Councilmembers Sanger and Velick opposed).
8. Boards and Commissions
11
8a. Bassett Creek Watershed Commission
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to formally
appoint Paul Anderson to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Housing Authority
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to reappoint
Shone Row to the Housing Authority for a term to expire June 30, 2007.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
From Councilmember Santa—Councilmember Santa announced the upcoming
Parktacular Parade, Wednesday, June 19th, at 7:00 p.m.
11. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
12
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 10, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally
Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and
City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Allegory of Excelsior
Andrea Myklebust, Artist, was present at the meeting. Jack Becker of FORECAST was also
present.
Mr. Harmening reviewed the history of the project and Ms. Myklebust informed the Council
about the proposed height, structural design, and exterior finishing, etc. Mr. Harmening added
that the schedule for fabrication would be about nine months, with installation occurring
sometime in the spring of 2003.
Councilmember Santa commented that the sculpture should be grounded for lighting purposes.
Councilmembers viewed a scale model of the sculpture.
Councilmember Sanger felt that a little controversy over the sculpture could be helpful, stating
that it could be both educational and stimulating. Mr. Becker suggested that the time be taken to
educate residents and promote the sculpture during it’s construction.
2. Update on TIF Districts/Debt management
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator, greeted the council and made introductions.
Mark Ruff, of Ehler’s and Associates, was present at the meeting. Mr. Ruff gave a presentation
summarizing the status of each TIF district in the City. He also described the action regarding
sale of bonds that was to be included on the next Council agenda for the meeting of June 17th.
Councilmember Nelson had raised the issue of whether the city should be investing at fixed or
variable rates. Mr. Ruff advised Council that his firm recommended a fixed rate. After some
discussion, the Council’s consensus was to go with the fixed rate.
Mr. Harmening commented that wise decisions had been made by the Council in 1997 and that
has left the City in a good position now.
13
3. Elmwood Study
Judie Erickson greeted the council and introducted Barry Warner and Monique MacKenzie of
SRF Consulting Group. Mr. Warner gave an overview of the public process that was in progress
and described the process used to identify issues and opportunities. Ms. MacKenzie spoke about
the challenge and conflicts they have experienced so far.
Mr. Warner explained that there is a strong voice coming from the neighborhood, but the
business area has not been as vocal with their views. She expressed concern that business
owners may feel intimidated by strong voices from the neighborhood and was looking at
methods that could be used in the future to identify business needs in a different environment.
Ms. MacKenzie reviewed three scenarios of potential change that focused on railroad access,
bike and trail access and the Highway 100 project.
Mr. Warner stated that as the process continues, Council must determine their role in the future
guiding of development in the area and the future enactment of a long-term plan. He added that
they are working to broaden the knowledge and perspective of the interested parties.
Councilmember Sanger commented that the Elmwood neighborhood has significant historical
aspects and it is the City’s responsibility to foster historic preservation and compatibility.
Mr. Warner reported that their final product will help Council to form a development plan that is
graphically based. With clear “If / Then” scenarios.
Councilmember Sanger felt that public participation would provide more control over the type of
development that will occur.
Mr. Harmening emphasized the difficulty in developing the area as a single family residential
district and indicated that more discussion and analysis is required to identify possibilities for the
type of redevelopment that could occur in the area.
4. Street Management Plan
Ms. Hagen introduced the plan to Council which will place the city in a cycle of repair and
reconstruction to maintain the city’s streets into the future.
Councilmember Sanger inquired if the program allows for street reconstruction to be taken out of
order. Ms. Hagen replied that all streets in the city had been evaluated and applied to a
consistent rating system. She did not feel any particular street in St. Louis Park was in a
condition that would warrant reconstruction ouside the proposed reconstruction cycle.
Mr. Meyer stated that upcoming council discussions regarding financing of capital improvements
may prove challenging to the Council.
14
Councilmember Sanger inquired if the construction of planned sidewalks would be delayed so as
to occur at the same time as street reconstruction. Ms. Hagen replied that she will do some
research and get back to Council on that matter.
Councilmember Velick requested lighted street signs. Ms. Hagen responded that there will be
opportunities for changes to lights and other amenities as the program continues.
Council agreed that the street management plan is very good and much needed.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that tremendous pressure will be placed on the Council by
citizens as the program gets underway. Mr. Meyer agreed and stated that though this plan is the
most efficient, council may received additional requests and challenges to the timing and
sequence of the projects. He asked Council if they felt it was politcally palitable to follow the
plan as is and to not change the order laid out in the program.
Councilmember Brimeyer commented that the plan has a rational, logical approach to it and
should be followed as planned. Council agreed.
5. City Phosphorous Ordinance
Mr. Vaughan gave an overview of the ordinance for Council stating that the provisions would
ensure residents had access to phosphorous-free fertilizers and that required signage at retail
outlets would provide an important educational opportunity. He also stated that signage required
by fertilizer applicators would assist the city in enforcement of the statutory restricitons on use of
phosphorous in fertilizer that is to go into effect in 2004.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she believed additional restrictions on display and sale should
be incorporated to strenghthen the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding the retail market and
potential enforcement problems of additional restrictions. After discussion council directed staff
to move forward with the ordinance as presented with the additional of language requiring
retailers to provide “sufficient amounts” of phosphorous free fertilizers for sale.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
City of St Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of July 1, 2002
7a. Request of Holle Construction on Behalf of Santorini’s Restaurant for a
Major Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for Seasonal, Evening
and Weekend Rooftop Use at 9920 & 9908 Wayzata Blvd.
Case No. 02-05-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the special permit
amendment subject to the conditions included in the
resolution.
Background:
On May 7, 1990, the City Council approved a Special Permit for a “Class I Restaurant” at 9920
& 9908 Wayzata Blvd. At that time, the property was zoned “B-2” General Business. Two
nonconforming billboards already existed on the site. The Special Permit resolution noted that
the restaurant approval did not change the nonconforming status of the billboards. On June 4,
1990, Resolution No. 90-72 was adopted to correct the legal description. However, the
conditions of approval did not change.
In 1995, the previous Zoning Administrator in the Inspections Department issued a Certificate of
Occupancy for Santorini’s to use the first floor as a restaurant with the basement for storage
only. The idea of rooftop use was not raised at that time. The existing Santorini’s restaurant is
now classified as a “Restaurant with Intoxicating Liquor License”. The current zoning for the
property is “O” Office District, which allows such restaurants by Conditional Use Permit subject
to certain conditions. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation is also Office. The existing
billboards, which are located on a freestanding structure in the parking lot and near the west
property line, are still nonconforming.
Last year, staff became aware that Santorini’s was using their rooftop for special events such as
weddings. The rooftop use had not been approved as part of the original Special Permit or
Occupancy Permit and was not permitted under the Zoning Code provisions for temporary uses.
Some Building and Health Code issues also needed to be addressed. Since the use is an
intensification of the site involving off-site impacts, such as overflow parking and noise, staff
deemed the proposal a Major Amendment to their Continued Special Permit.
In reviewing the application for the Major Amendment, staff found that the property is not
currently in compliance with the Continued Special Permit. Parking and landscaping
improvements required by the 1990 approval were never constructed. Staff and the applicant
have been working on potential solutions, and it appears that the conditions of the 1990 approval
can be met.
16
The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on February 6, 2002 and continued the
public hearing until February 20th. due to the unresolved Special Permit and Building Code
issues. On February 20th, staff provided an update to the Planning Commission regarding the
status of the application. At that time, the City had recently learned that the owner of the
property had not assented to the application. The Planning Commission reopened the public
hearing and heard testimony from a neighboring property manager. The Planning Commission
continued the public hearing indefinitely to allow staff and the applicant time to attempt to work
out all remaining issues. On March 26th, the City received a letter from the owner providing
conditional assent (see attached letter). The City Attorney noted some concern with accepting
applications that have only conditional assent of the owner. However, since the City had already
begun processing this application, the attorney agreed to allow further consideration. Despite the
fact that site compliance issues had not yet been resolved, the continued public hearing was
advertised for April 17th to meet State law deadline requirements. On April 16, 2002, the
applicant submitted a letter extending the review period for 45 days to allow additional time for
issues to be resolved (see attached letter). This allowed the Planning Commission to continue
the public hearing until May 1, 2002.
On April 29, 2002, the applicant submitted a new parking plan based upon a concept property
boundary. Assuming the property boundary is confirmed by a survey, it appears possible to meet
the requirements of the Special Permit. Therefore, on May 1, 2002, the Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and recommended approval on a vote of 4-0-1 subject to conditions.
One of the conditions required the applicant to submit revised site and landscape plans based
upon staff comments prior to City Council consideration. On May 17, 2002, the applicant
submitted a landscape plan. While it does not include as much landscaping as the 1990 approved
plan, it still appears possible to comply with the 1990 approval. A survey has not yet been
submitted.
On May 20, 2002, the Council considered the application. The applicant stated that he and the
restaurant owner would like more time to review the documents and proposed conditions of
approval. The applicant agreed in writing to an additional extension (see attachment). Council
members noted concerns that the 1990 landscaping and other improvements were not installed,
parking does not seem adequate, and the nonconforming billboards continue to remain. It was
suggested that the applicant deposit money for the landscaping and building improvements. The
Council deferred consideration until June 3, 2002.
On June 3, 2002, staff discussed with Santorini’s various State Building Code and Health Code
requirements (see analysis section of report). Santorini’s agreed that more time was needed to
consider the feasibility of making the needed improvements. The Council deferred consideration
to allow Santorini’s the opportunity to withdraw their application if they determined it was not
feasible to make the required improvements. Santorini’s is still working out some details, but
they have indicated that they believe the improvements are feasible, and they would like to
continue with their Special Permit amendment.
Issues:
17
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
How would additional parking needs be addressed?
Have the Building Code issues been resolved?
Are there any other concerns?
Analysis of Issues:
Does the proposal meet the conditions for amending Special Permits?
Section 36-36 of the Zoning Code states that Special Permits issued for land uses that are now
conditional uses are continued in full force and effect. It also states that the property covered by
a Continued Special Permit shall comply with all provisions of the Special Permit that were in
effect at the time of adoption of our most recent Zoning Code (December 31, 1992). Assuming
such compliance, the property may be expanded, altered or modified provided such change
complies in all respects with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and does not result in an
expansion or intensification of any existing non-conformities. Finally, any existing non-
conformities shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of the
ordinance to the extent reasonable and possible, except that greater or complete compliance is
not required for non-conformities involving lot area, lot width, required yards, building height,
floor area ratio, ground floor area ratio, density, and usable open space.
In reviewing the applicant’s proposal, staff has found that the property is not in compliance with
the conditions of the 1990 Special Permit. Specifically, parking and landscaping were not
constructed as approved (see attached 1990 approved site plan in comparison with location
airphoto). If it is determined that a property is not in compliance with the provisions of a
Continued Special Permit, the owner has 12 months to bring it into compliance or the Special
Permit may be terminated by the City. Upon termination, the use must comply with all
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the restaurant would need to be reviewed
as a new Conditional Use Permit under the current provisions of the Office District, parking
ordinance, nonconformities ordinance, etc. A new Conditional Use Permit could not be issued
unless the existing billboards were removed. The property owner has not agreed to that
condition (see attached letter from Restaurants No Limit, Inc.)
Parking: The approved Special Permit plan required parking on that portion of the roof where the
special events are proposed. It also required a redesign of the surface parking lot to add parking.
The Special Permit approval required 189 permanent on-site parking spaces, whereas current
parking requirements for the restaurant would be much higher. Therefore, staff believes the
existing parking is non-conforming. As noted above, Special Permits cannot be amended if they
would result in an expansion or intensification of existing non-conformities, so the permanent
parking cannot be reduced. In fact, the parking must be brought into compliance with current
requirements to the extent reasonable and possible.
In order to find that the amendment is in compliance with Code provisions, at a minimum, 189
permanent on-site parking spaces would have to be constructed. Since the restaurant would
remain open while a portion of the rooftop parking would be unavailable, additional surface
18
spaces must be constructed. On May 14, 2002, Santorini’s submitted a revised site plan (see
attached) showing retention of 10 parking spaces on the top of the roof, and a redesign of surface
parking for a total of 189 permanent on-site spaces. The proposed rooftop parking spaces will
require moving some existing equipment in that area and will limit the amount of space that can
be used for rooftop events. Continued use of the structured and rooftop parking also requires an
annual parking lot license based upon an Engineer’s report that must be submitted by the
applicant. The proposed surface parking plan requires removal of an existing accessory building,
relocation of two existing light poles, removal of an existing island that was to be removed in
1990, and restriping of several rows of parking for greater aisle room and efficiency. Staff has
found the proposed parking plan to be in conformance with the approved Special Permit
provided a boundary survey confirms the “boundary concept” shown. Staff has included the
requirement for a boundary survey as a condition of approval.
Landscaping: The revised site and landscape plans do not include landscaping in conformance
with the approved Special Permit. Some required plantings are not shown at all. Others are
shown, but a note indicates that they have not been included in the schedule of plantings to be
installed. However, it appears that the required landscaping could be included. One of the
proposed plants from 1990 (Russian Olive) is no longer recommended due to disease problems.
However, a substitute could easily be made. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of
approval requiring the landscape plan to be submitted and constructed in general conformance
with the 1990 approval. This would allow administrative approval of minor changes to the
species and location as long as it meets the general standards of the Special Permit approval
(e.g., number and value of trees). During the May 20th consideration, staff had recommended
installation of the landscaping prior to allowing the rooftop use. However, the Council suggested
requiring a monetary deposit for the landscaping and other improvements. This has been
included in the revised resolution and could potentially allow the applicant more time to make
the site and landscaping improvements. Therefore, staff has amended the draft resolution to
allow until September 15, 2002 for the site and landscaping improvements to be installed.
How would additional parking needs for the rooftop events be addressed?
The applicant is proposing to use the office property at 500 Ford Road (see location airphoto) for
overflow event parking. During the May 20th consideration, the applicant indicated that a valet
service would be used for the off-site parking. The Council could consider requiring such a
service, but it is not currently included in the conditions of approval. Assuming the office
property owner would be willing to formalize the agreement in a manner acceptable to the City
Attorney, staff believes the office property would provide adequate evening/weekend parking for
the rooftop events. Since the off-site event parking would only be available during evenings and
weekdays a limited time of the year, events and other rooftop restaurant/bar use would have to be
restricted to those times. Such a condition has been included in the proposed resolution.
Have the Building Code issues been resolved?
The City’s Chief Building Official has determined that to change the occupancy classification of
the parking ramp to an assembly occupancy for customer seating will require significant changes
to the building, including the following for exiting and accessibility:
19
1) The restaurant building must have an elevator to the roof or an interior accessible ramp to the
roof.
2) The rooftop must also have two Code complying exits. One of the required exits may be the
interior accessible ramp, if such a ramp is deemed feasible to construct. If it is not feasible to
construct the ramp and an elevator is used instead, there must be two sets of stairs in addition
to the elevator.
Santorini’s has been working on plans to meet the requirements and have indicated that they
believe it is feasible. A condition of approval has been included which requires the applicant to
submit a design set of plans prepared by a registered architect and showing compliance with the
change in occupancy classification of the rooftop from just parking to parking and assembly.
Are there any other concerns?
Noise Ordinance: Some concerns have been raised regarding potential noise from the events.
Any proposal would need to comply with current noise ordinances. Such a condition has been
included in the proposed resolution.
Health Code: The Food Code will require a permanent enclosed building addition be constructed
on the upper level to allow the applicant’s proposed use for bar service, food preparation, buffets
and watron stations on the level.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval subject to the conditions included in
the attached resolution.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
See case file
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
20
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends and Restates Resolution 90-72
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 90-72 ADOPTED
ON JUNE 4, 1990, GRANTING A SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL USE) PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 14-156(17) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO PERMIT A CLASS I RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY ZONED B-2,
GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED AT 9920 WAYZATA BOULEVARD AND
GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO ALLOW SPECIAL EVENTS ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “O” OFFICE DISTRICT AT 9920
AND 9908 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
FINDINGS
WHEREAS Polo of Minnesota (Naegele Restaurants No Limit, Inc.) has made
application to the City Council for a special permit under Section 14-156(17) of the St. Louis
Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of a Class I Restaurant within a B-2, General Business
District located at 9920 Wayzata Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Parcel One
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township
117, Range 22, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot
1, Block 7, SHELARD PARK, distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most
Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East
(assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds
West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance
of 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4, Block 7, of
said SHELARD PARK; thence South 2 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West,
along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 and the West line of said
Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds
West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds
West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1
degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1
degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East, a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of
beginning.
The boundary lines of the above-described land have been marked by Judicial
Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19207.
Parcel Two
21
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township
117, Range 22, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot
1, Block 7, SHELARD PARK, distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most
Southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West
along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming said West line
has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25
feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a
distance of 144.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a
distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a
distance of 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14
minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14
minutes 59 seconds East, a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning.
The boundary lines of the above described land have been marked by Judicial
Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17713; according to the Government
Survey thereof.
WHEREAS the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 90-19-SP) and the effect of the proposed Class I Restaurant on
the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS the Council has determined that the Class I Restaurant will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious
traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and
the proposed Class I Restaurant is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS the contents of Planning Case File 90-19-SP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
WHEREAS, Holle Construction and Tony Nicklow, B & A, Inc. dba Santorini
Restaurant with the consent of the property owner (Restaurants No Limit Inc.) have made
application to the City Council for an amendment to a continued special permit under Section
36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow seasonal, evening and weekend restaurant
seating use on the roof of an existing restaurant located at 9920 and 9908 Wayzata Boulevard
within the “O” Office District.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 90-19-SP and 02-05-CUP and the effect of the proposed special events on the roof of an
existing restaurant on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding
area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
22
WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 90-72 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated June 4, 1990 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 90-72 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 90-19-SP and 02-05-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 90-72 (document not filed)
is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit
to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a Class I restaurant (restaurant with liquor)
at the location described subject to the following conditions:
1. That the site be developed and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site plan and
Landscape Plan, except as modified by Condition Number 5 and Condition Number 7;
Exhibit B, First Floor Plan; and Exhibit C, Elevations. (amended on May 20, 2002)
2. That approval of the site plan shall not be construed as approval of the two
nonconforming billboards on the property, nor as a modification or elimination of the
nonconforming status of said billboards.
3. That all trash be stored entirely within a building.
4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the parking lot or surface of the ground and
designed so that no rays are directed toward highways, roadways, or abutting
development.
5. That Exhibit A be altered to include an additional 4 deciduous boulevard trees whose
mature height is not less than 50 feet. These trees shall be a minimum of 3 inches in
diameter at a distance of 1 foot above the ground plane when planted and are to be placed
within the front yard setback or right of way along the north frontage at a spacing no
greater than 50 feet.
6. All improvements shall be completed prior to December 31, 1990.
7. The continued special permit shall be amended on July 1, 2002 (Case No. 02-05-CUP) to
incorporate all of the preceding conditions and to allow seasonal, evening and weekend
rooftop restaurant seating on the existing restaurant; subject to the following conditions:
23
a. Prior to use of the rooftop, the applicant and owner shall comply with the
following:
1) submit revised site and landscape plans based upon an accurate property
survey and including landscaping in general conformance with the 1990
Special Permit as approved by the Zoning Administrator; such approved
plans shall become amended official exhibits. (amends Condition Number
1)
2) the applicant and owner shall sign the assent form and approved official
exhibits.
3) complete all required site improvements or submit a cash escrow or letter
of credit in an amount of 125% of the estimated cost of those
improvements not completed.
4) execute a parking agreement for off-site event parking as approved by the
Zoning Administrator and City Attorney.
5) a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued for the change in use to an
assembly occupancy after completion of all necessary code improvements.
6) obtain permits for all tents or building modifications in accordance with
Code requirements. Temporary structures are limited to 6 months per
year; any permanent building addition shall comply with architectural
design requirements.
7) submit an Engineer’s report and obtain a parking ramp license annually.
b. By September 15, 2002, complete all required site and building improvements
including all landscaping in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
c. Use of the rooftop for events or as an extension of the bar/restaurant is restricted
to those times during which the approved parking agreement allows use of the
off-site parking.
d. Approved rooftop parking shall remain open to the general public and clear of
obstructions at all times.
e. The site shall comply with all City ordinances, including the noise ordinance, at
all times.
f. The restaurant or property owner shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per
violation of any conditions of approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
24
25
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of July 1, 2002
7b. First reading of zoning ordinance text amendments to allow garage sales in
residential districts
The proposed amendments would codify the existing policies for allowing garage
sales of household goods and crafts from all residentially zoned and residentially
used properties. Standards for signs and permitted locations would be clarified.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of ordinance to amend Chapter
36 of the Municipal Code to add “Garage Sales” as a temporary
use with a definition and standards and set a second reading for
Julie 15, 2002.
Background:
Standards for garage sales were once identified in the licensing section of the ordinance and the
same standards were incorporated into the current Community Handbook. Because the
licensing language actually exempted garage sales from licensing requirements, the licensing
section was deleted from city ordinance during recodification. It has come to the City’s attention
that despite the fact that it has always been city polity to allow garage sales in residential areas,
corresponding language clarifying standards for conduct of the sales is not included in the zoning
chapter of the code.
The rules of construction in the zoning ordinance state that unless a use is not specifically
allowed in the chapter, that use is prohibited. Because garage sales are not currently addressed in
zoning, Staff is proposing to codify amended language permitting garage sales as a temporary
use on residentially zoned and residentially used properties and also clarify standards for garage
sale signage.
On June 5, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. During the
discussion several issues were raised. One was a concern that real estate signs and garage sale
signs fall under the same degree of enforcement. Another issue was in regard to the proposed
language that specifically addressed religious institutions without addressing other uses such as
schools and community centers. The Planning Commission voted to delay action until June 19,
2002 to allow staff time to address the comments made by the Commission. Staff made changes
addressing these concerns.
On June 19, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of
the text amendments on a vote of 4-0, one Commission member abstained.
The draft ordinance is attached to this report.
Issues:
26
What are the current standards in the Community Handbook?
How would garage sales be regulated?
How would sign requirements be clarified for garage sales?
Where can garage sales be held?
Do garage sales require permits?
Is there equal enforcement of signs?
What happens if a garage sale ordinance is not adopted?
Analysis of the Issues:
What are the current standards in the Community Handbook?
Standards for garage sales were once identified in the licensing section of the ordinance. The
same standards were incorporated into the current Community Handbook. Staff and the
Planning Commission are recommending adding similar language to the zoning ordinance that
clarifies the existing city policy, based on the language in the community handbook, which states
the following:
Residents may conduct two garage sales, each lasting a maximum of 72 consecutive hours.
Some neighborhood organizations coordinate annual neighborhood-wide garage sales so you
may want to ask your neighborhood association president about participation…..If you post
signs, be sure to pick them up as soon as your sale is over. Signs may not be posted on utility
poles, traffic signs or public right-of-ways (i.e. curbside areas of lawns).
How would garage sales be regulated?
Regulations for garage sales were located in the licensing section of the City ordinance;
however, garage sales were not required to obtain licenses. During the recodification process in
2001 these regulations were deleted from the city ordinance. It is staff’s belief that because
garage sales are temporary in nature, the regulations would best fit in the temporary use section
of the zoning ordinance. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding language based
on the old ordinance regulations and on the requirements in the current community handbook.
These requirements would permit garage sales on residential premises two (2) times a year, each
for no more than 72 hours.
How would sign requirements be clarified for garage sales?
Currently the sign ordinance does not specifically regulate garage sales signs. Temporary signs
are permitted with a permit for a maximum of 30 days in any calendar year. In residential
districts the temporary signs may be between 6 to 25 square feet depending on the district and
size of the lot.
These regulations are not intended to address garage sale signs. They are generally utilized for
apartment leasing signs. Garage sales are residential events. To ensure that they do not pose any
problems or inconveniences for the neighbors staff recommends adding language clarifying
garage sale sign regulations. Staff recommends limiting most garage sale signs to 2 square feet,
27
which is the maximum size for permanent signs on single family and two family residential
properties. Other properties that are residentially zoned or residentially used would be regulated
by the current temporary sign ordinance. This would allow properties that are much larger to
have a bigger sign. The maximum size of a garage sale sign on larger properties would be
restricted to no more than 25 square feet.
The current sign ordinance does prohibit certain types or locations of signs in all use districts
throughout the city. Section 36-362(e): Prohibited Signs, prohibits signs over the public right-of-
way unless the city council grants permission, as well as off-premises signs. These regulations
are enforced uniformly. The proposed ordinance amendment references this section thus
clarifying that garage sale signs would need to continue to comply with this section.
The sign ordinance also regulates temporary signs. With a permit, temporary signs may be
permitted on a lot for a total of 30 days. Staff does not believe this is applicable to garage sale
signs because the time period of a garage sale is much shorter and a permit therefore seems
unnecessary. The policy regarding real estate signs under 40 square feet is that they do not
require a permit. However, they are still removed from the prohibited areas such as public right-
of-way. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend exempting garage sale signs from
permit requirements as well provided that they be limited to two days before the sale and taken
down immediately after the sale is over.
Where can a garage sale be held?
To address the Planning Commission’s concerns that schools, community centers, etc. are
regarded the same as religious institutions, staff proposed the definition for garage sales to
reference all residentially zoned properties and residentially used properties.
This definition permits garage sales to be held at all residential properties whether it is a single
family home, two family home, townhome, apartment, etc. This includes residential properties
located in zoning districts other than residentially zoned. In addition it will allow other uses in a
residentially zoned district to have garage sales. These other uses could include educational
facilities, religious institutions, community centers, senior citizen facilities, etc.
Should a facility that is not located on a residentially zoned or used property want to hold a
temporary sale on their property the current temporary use ordinance does permit this. Section
36-82(5) of the zoning ordinance permits temporary sales within a C, O, M-X, or I district.
Do garage sales require permits?
As mentioned earlier, garage sales were originally placed in the licensing section of the City
Ordinance, however the City did not require that permits be obtained. In keeping with this
policy, staff is not proposing to require permits for garage sales. If, at the garage sale, another
activity requires other permits such as temporary tent permit, temporary food license, etc. those
regulations would still apply.
Is there equal enforcement of signs?
28
The enforcement of prohibited signs is a tough issue. As stated above, the zoning ordinance
currently prohibits all off-premises signs as well as signs in the public rights-of-way unless
granted permission by the city council. This means that any sign, whether it is a garage sale
sign, or a real estate sign, or an advertisement sign, located off- site or in the public right-of-way
is prohibited. Staff’s policy is to treat all prohibited signs the same, they are removed. Staff
does not distinguish between the types of signs. Any sign placed in a prohibited location is
removed. These signs are taken to the maintenance shop and stored next to the dumpster.
Anyone can call and ask if their sign was pulled and may get them back. Staff is equipped with
hooks, bolt cutters and various tools required to remove these signs. Staff does make a concerted
effort to remove as many prohibited signs as possible. As stated earlier, the proposed garage sale
ordinance does reference the prohibited sign section of the ordinance and require compliance
with this section. This is for clarity purposes. Staff is not proposing changing the types of
prohibited signs. The Planning Commission concurred that it was not appropriate to change the
sign ordinance as part of the garage sale hearing. However, the Planning Commission directed
staff to consider potential changes to allow some directional signs in the right-of-way. They
noted that Minnetonka is currently considering such changes. Staff is researching this issue and
discussing it with Public Works. Certain restriction may apply on state aid roads.
What happens if a garage sale ordinance not adopted?
At present garage sales are not regulated by the city code. If language specifically permitting
garage sales is not included in the code then they are prohibited. This is because retail sales of
any kind are prohibited in residential zoning districts. Historically, the Licensing section of the
ordinance permitted garage sales. Staff’s proposed amendment is based on the regulations found
in the old ordinance. The intent is to provide general regulations that are not too complex.
Garage sales can be a community event and by and large residents who have garage sales
generally follow the city’s policy regarding duration and frequency. Occasionally there are times
when a garage sale at one property turns into a weekly event, becoming a retail business. In
these cases having a garage sale ordinance will provide the city with a way to enforce against
such retail sales in residential districts.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Municipal (Zoning)
Code amendments.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Planning Commission Unapproved Minute Excerpts
Prepared By: Julie Grove, Associate Planner
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
29
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-142(a), 36-82(b) and TABLE 36-115A IN SECTION 36-115
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-30-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-142(a), 36-82(b), and Table 36-
115A in Section 36-115 are hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 36-142 Land Use Descriptions
Garage Sales: means the temporary sale of home-crafted items and used household goods by the
owner, resident and/or neighbors of a property. Garage sales include estate, rummage, basement,
yard, porch or similar sales conducted at a residentially zoned and/or used property.
Section 36-115
Table 36-115A Amendments as follows:
Add subsection 36-82 (b)(9) (Authorized Temporary Uses)
(9) Garage Sales. Garage sales shall be permitted in all residentially zoned and/or used
properties subject to the following conditions.
a. Activities relating to the sales, including any outdoor/storage shall be limited to
no more than two (2) sales events in each calendar year, each for a period not to
exceed 72 consecutive hours.
b. Garage sale signs on single family and two family residential properties are
limited to 2 square feet in area per street frontage; garage sale signs on other
Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
Temporary Uses
Garage Sales T T T T T T T T T T T
30
residentially zoned and/or used properties shall be regulated by the temporary
sign area allowed under Table 36-362A for the zoning and size of the property in
question except that in no case may a sign exceed 25 square feet per street
frontage.
1. Signs must comply with Section 36-262(e). Garage sale signs are exempt
from sign permit requirements provided such signs are posted no more
than two days prior to the sale and are removed immediately after the end
of the sale.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-30-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
31
Excerpts
Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
June 19, 2002
3. Public Hearing
D. Case No. 02-30-ZA (continued from 6-5-02)
Public hearing on zoning ordinance text amendments relative to garage sales and
rummage sales in residential districts.
Julie Grove presented a staff report. Ms. Grove discussed requirements for signage, and
said that staff does not recommend that permits be required for garage sale signs.
Specific reference to religious institutions has been deleted, and any residentially zoned
property may hold a garage sale. She said temporary sales may be held on non-
residentially zoned properties. In regard to enforcement, staff has been assured that all
signs that are prohibited will treated the same and removed.
Commissioner Garelick talked about Minnetonka’s simplified ordinance regarding real
estate and garage sale signs. He suggested using Minnetonka’s ordinance as an example.
The ordinance was distributed.
Commissioner Morris stated that garage and rummage sales are an essential part of the
fabric of the community. He thinks garage sale signs should be allowed, and, he
disagrees with the restriction of holding a sale twice a year.
Chair Gothberg recommended that staff review Minnetonka’s ordinance, discuss its
issues and bring back a proposal for a signage ordinance.
With no one wishing to speak, Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Garelick recommended that staff look at signage problems in surrounding
communities. Ms. Jeremiah said staff will look at signage concerns, including
Minnetonka’s ordinance, and present a separate signage ordinance in the future.
Commissioner Morris agreed with Commissioner Garelick’s recommendation, however,
he will abstain from voting on this item because he cannot vote for it, but he believes the
item should move forward.
Commissioner Garelick moved approval of the proposed text amendment, and to look at
the sign issues separately. Motion passed 4-0-1. (Commissioner Morris abstained).
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7c
Meeting of July 1, 2002
7c.. First Reading of zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached garages
and other accessory structures/uses.
Case No. 02-24-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of the zoning ordinance text
amendments regarding detached garages and other accessory
structures/uses and set second reading for July 15, 2002.
Background:
Staff has been working with Greg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates in analyzing potential
changes to the ordinance regulating detached garages and other accessory structures in
residential districts. Over the course of several study sessions, the City Council discussed issues
pertaining to the size, placement and use of detached garages. The review was initiated by the
Council in response to issues raised by residents about construction of some detached garages
permitted under the existing code standards. The Council directed staff to continue working out
the details and to prepare ordinance revisions for a public hearing and Planning Commission
recommendation.
The intent of the proposed ordinance revisions is to revise the height and setback requirements
for larger garages to minimize the impact, while balancing the need to allow storage space for
move-up housing needs. In reviewing accessory structure ordinances, staff also found some
inconsistencies in the Code and sections needing clarification to ensure uniform enforcement.
Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission are also proposing some changes to the yard
encroachments and accessory uses sections of the Code.
On June 5, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the proposed
ordinance amendments. One citizen spoke at the first public hearing. The Planning Commission
continued the public hearing until June 19th and asked staff to consider the following:
1. clarify that encroachments are not allowed in drainage and utility easements;
2. consider the adequacy of the two feet setback in instances where garage doors face
alleys; and
3. consider changing the existing definition for principal building height to exclude
rooftop equipment.
On June 19, 2002, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing and discussed the
changes proposed by staff to address the above concerns (see Analysis section of report). Two
citizens testified regarding the proposed amendments (see attached unapproved Planning
Commission excerpts). The Planning Commission also discussed one Commissioner’s concern
regarding requiring pitched roofs on residential accessory buildings. However, the remainder of
the Planning Commission agreed that residential accessory buildings should be designed with
33
sloped roofs. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance
amendments on a vote of 4-1-0.
Subsequently, staff discussed some questions raised by a citizen regarding the definition of
accessory building height and how it would be interpreted in certain unusual cases. To ensure
consistency with the way staff presented its interpretation, staff is recommending a slight change
to the proposed language to reference the Building Code definition of “first story” (see Analysis
section of report). That change has also been included in the proposed ordinance. The sketches
that will be included in the ordinance have also been modified slightly to ensure consistent
interpretation (see attached ordinance and sketches).
Proposed Ordinance Revisions:
The intent of the ordinance change is to:
1. Simplify accessory building height measurement.
2. Add more stringent requirements to control the impacts of:
a. Two story and tall detached garages/accessory buildings (over 15 feet to the
peak).
b. Accessory buildings with flat roofs.
3. Improve consistency between the Building Code and Zoning Code by clarifying that
building eaves/overhangs are not allowed in the minimum 2 feet setback area.
4. Codify policies prohibiting plumbing for kitchens and bathrooms in detached garages and
other accessory buildings.
5. Codify policies that allow driveways, sidewalks and retaining walls in setback areas, and
clarify regulations for window wells.
6. Clarify setbacks for swimming pools and tennis courts.
7. Clarify that rooms for boarders and roomers as well as living quarters for
domestic/medical household staff are not allowed in accessory buildings and cannot
constitute a separate dwelling unit within the principal building.
The Council and staff felt the existing setback requirements for standard garages are generally
appropriate. Therefore, the only changes proposed for smaller garages involve the change in
measuring height and the clarification regarding eave/overhang setbacks. It should be noted that
the proposed change in height measurement does result in a slightly more stringent standard for
garages at the minimum 2 feet setback from neighboring properties. This was intended as a
means of ensuring that two-story garages cannot be built at the minimum setback.
An information sheet summarizing detached garage/accessory building regulations will also be
prepared to improve understanding and compliance with regulations.
Summary of Issues:
What are the concerns with measuring the height of detached buildings such as garages and
what is proposed?
How would the impacts of taller accessory buildings be minimized for neighboring
properties?
What are the reasons for regulating plumbing in accessory structures and what is proposed?
34
How have other accessory structures and uses been regulated and what clarifications are
proposed?
How have the Planning Commission’s concerns been addressed?
How has the definition of accessory building height been modified to ensure consistent
interpretation?
Analysis of Issues:
What are the concerns with measuring the height of detached buildings such as garages
and what is proposed?
Revised height definition – There is a need to simplify the way the zoning code defines the
measurement of height for detached garages.
Building height is currently defined as measured from the mean curb elevation or the lowest
ground elevation within 5 feet of the accessory building foundation to the midpoint of hip and
gable roofs or the top of mansard or flat roofs. The use of a roof midpoint height measurement
has little relationship to the perceived height or mass at the property line. Midpoint height has
also been a difficult measurement to make due to variables in truss configuration, garage width,
eave and sidewall height, etc. The combination of the potential variables at the grade and roof
elevations makes height measurement somewhat complex and open to interpretation. For one
case in which there was a dispute, the Council made an interpretation regarding measuring
garage height from the side facing the street to the midpoint of the gable including eave
overhang. However, the standard cannot easily be applied in all cases.
For detached garages and other slab-on-grade accessory structures, measurement from the
finished slab elevation at the main entrance door opening (e.g, the vehicular entrance to a garage)
is a more appropriate measuring point and is easier for staff and applicants to use and
understand. Measurement from the garage floor slab to the highest point on the peak of the roof
is a more understandable measurement of garage height. It is also easier for the Building
Inspectors and builders to confirm during construction. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend revising the height measurement definition to a slab to peak dimension for detached
garages and accessory buildings in the residential districts. The exact language is proposed to be
tweaked to ensure consistent interpretation (see last section of Analysis below).
In order to prevent construction of second-story space at the minimum setback, staff and the
Planning Commission recommend a slightly more stringent height limit for garages at the
minimum setback (15 feet to the peak instead of 16 feet to the peak allowed under the current
height definition and standard). This may require some homeowners to use a lower pitch on
their garage than their home or build the garage with a greater setback.
How would the impacts of taller accessory buildings be minimized for neighboring
properties?
Increased setback for increased height - The current Code requires a minimum two (2) foot
setback for smaller garages (up to 12 feet in height to midpoint and 26 feet wide) located in the
35
rear yard (+60 foot front setback) and a five (5) foot setback (except to an alley) for garages in
excess of 12 feet and less than 15 feet tall (at the midpoint) and/or greater than 26 feet wide.
If the height definition is revised to measure to the peak, the maximum height dimension will
change. The primary issue seems to be the distance of tall and two-story garages to neighboring
property. Since the effects of these structures on neighboring properties are similar to the
principal structure, staff believes the setback to a two-story garage should be similar to the
setback for a primary dwelling.
Require tall garages to have the same setbacks as the principal dwelling - Staff feels that tall
garages with the potential for second floor space occupancy (i.e. over 15 feet tall to the peak)
should have the same minimum setbacks as a principal dwelling of a similar height unless the
garage is built close to an alley.
Rear yard setbacks for taller garages should match the principal structure setback of 25 feet,
except when they access an alley. Taller garages on alleys do not seem to generate complaints,
and the Board of Zoning Appeals recently granted a variance for a garage with living space
above it setback only 2 ½ feet from an alley. The current rear yard setback for lower garages is
two (2) feet and five (5) feet for taller garages except on an alley. Staff believes the minimum
setback for garages accessing an alley should continue to match the current two-foot minimum
setback requirement. The Planning Commission recommended some additional language to
ensure adequate access and visibility (see analysis of Planning Commission concerns below).
Lower single story garages do not appear to be a problem adjacent to neighboring properties, so
staff and the Planning Commission believe the current two-foot side and rear setback should be
retained for garages that are 60 feet or more from the front property line.
It should be noted that this recommendation would not prevent anyone from building a
reasonable-size garage (up to 15 feet tall and 26 feet wide) within 2 feet of their property lines.
It may encourage larger garages to be attached to the house or located close to an alley.
Recommended standards for detached garages over 15 feet in height (slab to peak) and/or
26 feet in width.
District Min. Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. to Alley
R-1 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-2 7 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-3 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
Notes:
1. No detached garage shall exceed 22 feet in height to peak or the height of the principal dwelling which ever is
less.
2. Non garage accessory structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height at the peak and shall not exceed a ten-foot
sidewall height.
3. A minimum roof slope of 3/12 (rise/run) is required for all detached garages.
36
Table 1. Comparison of existing and proposed setback/height requirements
Current
maximum
height
(midpoint
or flat)
Current
minimum
setback
Maximum
height
equivalent
to peak
Recommended
maximum
height to peak
category
Recommended
minimum side
yard setbacks
Recommended
minimum rear
yard setbacks
12 feet 2 feet 16 feet 15 feet and
lower
2 feet 2 feet
15 feet 5 feet 22 feet Above 15 feet
up to 22 feet
Same as
principal
dwelling
setback. 7-9
feet depending
upon the
zoning district.
Same as principal
structure (25
feet), unless on
an alley (2 feet).
Table 2 - Comparison of existing and proposed setbacks for detached garages at various
heights
Current
height to
midpoint
Current
setback
requirement
Equivalent
measurement to
peak (roof pitch)
Proposed side yard
setback
requirement
Proposed rear
yard setback
10 feet 2 feet 12 feet (4/12) 2 feet 2 feet
11 feet 2 feet 14 feet (6/12) 2 feet 2 feet
11.5 feet 2 feet 15 feet (7/12) 2 feet 2 feet
12 feet 2 feet 14 feet (6/12) 2 feet 2 feet
12 feet 2 feet 16 feet (8/12) 7-9 feet 25 feet
14 feet 5 feet 20 feet (12/12) 7-9 feet 25 feet
15 feet 5 feet 22 feet (12/12+) 7-9 feet 25 feet
Shading indicates potential usable two-story space.
Note: Table 2 assumes a typical two-car garage width of 24 feet and a sidewall height of eight feet, except for the
22 foot peak height which assumes either a taller sidewall or a wider garage.
No eaves/overhangs in 2 feet setback area – The Building Code does not generally allow
eaves/overhangs within 2 feet of property lines due to fire concerns. The allowable yard
encroachments section addresses this for principal buildings by allowing eaves to project no
more than 3 feet into the required setback. Since the setback is a minimum of 5 feet for principal
buildings in residential districts, a 2 feet setback for eaves is maintained. However, since
garages have been allowed within 2 feet of property lines, the Zoning Code currently implies that
garage eaves could project to the property line. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
clarifying this by prohibiting any eaves/overhangs in the minimum 2 feet setback area.
Require a minimum roof pitch of 3/12 – Detached garages with a peak height of 15 feet and a
flat roof could potentially still have a 7.5 foot second floor height that could be a legally
occupiable room. The top of garages with flat roofs could also be used as tall decks, which is not
in keeping with current limits on deck height at minimum setbacks. To prevent these potential
impacts and help meet requirements for detached buildings to resemble the principal buildings,
37
which almost always have pitched roofs in residential districts, staff and the majority of the
Planning Commission believe a minimum 3/12 roof pitch should be required. The one
dissenting Planning Commissioner believes design standards should be more flexible to allow
architectural creativity.
What are the reasons for regulating plumbing in accessory structures and what is
proposed?
Current City policy is to not allow plumbing in garages and other accessory buildings. The
reason behind this policy is to limit the potential conversion of detached garages and other
accessory buildings into illegal accessory dwelling units. The policy currently prevents any
water or sanitary service to detached accessory structures.
No plumbing for kitchens or bathrooms - Community Development and Inspections staff have
discussed this issue and don’t believe the policy was intended to prevent hose bibs, utility sinks
and floor drains in garages, sheds, etc. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending clarifying the policy in ordinance to state that plumbing for bathroom and kitchen
facilities is prohibited. This would prevent the creation of accessory dwelling units that could
potentially be rented or occupied by family members. However, it would allow hose bibs and
utility sinks.
Floor drains hooked up to sanitary - With regard to floor drains, staff has discussed the potential
environmental merits of requiring the drains to be hooked up to the sanitary system. Without
such an ordinance, Inspections staff would interpret State Plumbing Code as permitting floor
drains to be “daylighted” in some instances. This means any potential oil, fertilizer, etc. in the
drain water could eventually end up in ponds, lakes, etc via the stormwater system. It is not
unusual for cities to require such drains to lead to sanitary, so that the effluent is treated and the
potential for undesirable materials in the public waters is reduced. Planning and Public Works
staff believe there is public benefit to this requirement. The Planning Commission agreed with
the recommendation to clarify this in the Zoning Code.
How have other accessory structures and uses been regulated and what clarifications
are proposed?
The Zoning Code includes a section called “Yard encroachments” (Sec. 36-73) that is intended
to exempt certain structures from meeting the same setbacks as the principal structure. The
Zoning Code defines structure very broadly as including “anything constructed or erected, the
use of which requires a location on the ground, or attached to something having a location on the
ground, including but not limiting the generality of the foregoing, advertising signs, billboards
and fences.” Due to the general definition, such things as driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls,
swimming pools, and window wells as well as decks, flag poles and bird baths are structures.
While the Zoning Code specifically addresses exceptions to setback requirements for many
structures, including bird baths, some are not mentioned. If they are not mentioned, they are
supposed to be held to the principal structure setback. While staff believes this was probably the
intent for structures such as swimming pools and tennis courts that have off-site impacts, staff
believes some structures were inadvertently missed from the setback exemptions.
38
Driveways and sidewalks – The Zoning Code does not specifically exempt driveways and
sidewalks from meeting the principal structure setbacks. However, by policy, driveways and
sidewalks leading from the public right-of-way to homes or garages have been allowed in the
setback areas. Staff and the Planning Commission would like to Codify this policy as an
allowable encroachment to the yard (setback) requirements.
Retaining walls – The Zoning Code does not specifically exempt retaining walls from meeting
the principal structure setbacks. However, it is sometimes necessary to construct retaining walls
in setback areas to correct grades, and this has been allowed by policy. One example is a
retaining wall that is constructed to allow egress basement windows for expanded lower level
living area. This could help meet move-up housing goals. Staff and the Planning Commission
would like to Codify this policy as an allowable encroachment to the yard (setback) requirements
as long as the retaining walls are the minimum height necessary and drainage is not adversely
effected. By policy, retaining walls with fences constructed on them are counted as part of the
total fence height.
Window wells – The Zoning Code does not specifically exempt window wells from meeting the
principal structure setbacks. However, bay windows are allowed to encroach two feet into the
setback area as long as they are no more than 20 square feet in area. Staff has been using this as
a commensurate standard to apply to window wells. However, the standard does not align with
Building Code requirements for egress basement windows. Such egress window wells must
project a minimum of 3 feet from the principal building and be a minimum of 9 square feet in
area. The way the Zoning Code is currently being interpreted, it prevents homes at minimum
existing setbacks from adding egress window wells to expand living area into the basement.
While staff does not believe this is in keeping with move-up housing goals, staff is concerned
that a complete exemption could lead to some situations where window wells on neighboring
properties are constructed so close together that adequate drainage does not exist between the
permanent structures. In some cases, drainage and utility easements may exist. Therefore, staff
and the Planning Commission are proposing allowing window well encroachments up to 3 feet
into the yard area and up to 20 square feet in area provided drainage is not adversely effected and
the structures do not encroach on any existing utility or drainage easements.
Swimming pools and tennis courts – The residential districts specifically allow swimming pools
and tennis courts as accessory uses. However, they are not listed as allowable encroachments in
setback areas. Staff believes this was intended, since the uses have off-site impacts, such as
noise. However, this has not always been clear to staff issuing permits, and it may be somewhat
onerous to expect such structures to meet the 25 feet rear yard setback. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend requiring such structures to meet side yard requirements and a
minimum 5 feet rear yard setback. There are likely some existing non-conforming swimming
pools within about 3 feet of property lines that could apply for variances if there is a hardship in
rebuilding them at some future date.
Boarders, roomers and domestic/medical household staff – The residential districts allow the
“keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family” as an accessory use.
The residential districts also allow “living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical
39
purposes on the premises” as an accessory use. Due to limitations on anything that could lead to
the creation of accessory dwelling units, staff believes the intent was to have these accessory
uses within the principal building and prevent them from including full kitchen and bath facilities
that would make them separate dwelling units. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission
are proposing to clarify the ordinance to state that such accessory uses shall not be in accessory
buildings or be designed to create a separate dwelling unit.
How have the Planning Commission’s concerns been addressed?
Easements: Staff recommends adding language to the yard encroachments section of the Code
stating that such encroachments are not allowed in easements unless encroachment agreements
have been approved. Staff recommends similar language in the accessory structures section.
These changes were reviewed at the continued Planning Commission hearing and have been
included in the attached ordinance.
Alley setbacks: Staff recommends adding language to the detached garage location section
noting that garages on alleys must be located and designed to provide adequate visibility and
vehicle turning movements. This will allow staff to look at each case individually and determine
if the minimum 2 feet setback is adequate based upon the proposed entry to the garage and
existing alley clearance. The language has been added to the attached ordinance.
Principal building height: Staff recommends deleting the reference to rooftop equipment, since
staff believes, by policy, the City has not been measuring to the top of such equipment.
However, the City would continue to require screening. Parapet walls are preferred, and while
counted in the height definition, they are exempted from the maximum height allowed in the
district as long as the parapet is three feet or less in height.
How has the definition of accessory building height been modified to ensure consistent
interpretation?
During the June 19th Planning Commission hearing, staff pointed out that accessory building
height would generally be measured from the slab elevation to the highest point of the structure.
In cases where the accessory building doesn’t have a slab floor (e.g., a shed without a poured
concrete floor) or in cases where a grade change allows some accessible space below a
“Spancrete” (reinforced concrete) garage floor, staff would use the Building Code definition of
first floor to determine the point from which to begin measuring height. In most cases, there
would be no incentive for homeowners to change the grade in an attempt to gain some lower
level space, because the driveway would still need to be at the higher grade, and the amount of
lower level space allowed would be limited by the Building Code. If the space met the definition
of first floor, it would be counted in the height measurement.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff asked the Inspections Department to
confirm the Building Code definition of “first floor”. Inspections staff found that the Uniform
Building Code defines “first story” and “story” as follows:
40
STORY, FIRST, is the lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined
herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be
classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet (1219 mm)
below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not
more than 8 feet (2438 mm) below grade, as defined herein, at any point.
STORY is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and
the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that
portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the
ceiling or roof above. If the finshed floor level directly above a usable or unused floor
space is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade, as defined herein, for more than 50
percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet (3658 mm) above grade, as defined
herein, at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a
story.
Since the Building Code defines “first story” instead of “first floor”, staff recommends using
the phrase term “first story elevation, as defined by Building Code”, in the ordinance. In
most cases, this will be the slab height. However, since slab is not defined by the Building or
Zoning Code, staff recommends eliminating that reference from the ordinance.
The sketches shown at Planning Commission included a drawing of a gazebo as an example
of an accessory structure that is not a building. However, the Zoning Code defines
“building” as “any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons,
animals or personal property”. Therefore, gazebos are actually buildings and would be
measured the same way as garages and sheds (from the floor elevation). Play equipment and
other residential accessory structures would be measured from the lowest grade at the base of
the structure to the highest point of the structure.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ordinance amendments regarding
detached garages and other accessory structures and uses according to the analysis in the staff
report.
Attachments:
Excerpts from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 2002
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Height Sketches (to be inserted into ordinance)
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
41
UNOFFICIAL EXCERPTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 19, 2002
C. Case No. 02-24-ZA (continued from 6-5-02)
Public hearing on zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached garages
and other accessory structures/uses.
Janet Jeremiah presented a staff report. As requested by the Planning Commission on
June 5th, Ms. Jeremiah presented sketches. The current staff analysis also addresses
Planning Commission concerns regarding easements, alley setbacks, and principal
building heights. Ms. Jeremiah said City Attorney Tom Scott is available to answer
questions regarding correspondence from John Miller. Ms. Jeremiah said the proposed
ordinance does not affect the validity of the court order, and the proposed ordinance is for
future construction.
Chair Gothberg thanked Mr. Miller for the correspondence. He opened the public
hearing.
John Miller, 3550 France Avenue South, referenced the Mohler/Christianson court order
filed in May, 2002. Mr. Miller stated that he is opposed to the zoning ordinance text
amendments regarding detached garages and other accessory structures and uses. Mr.
Miller said that he thinks a new ordinance is not needed, and that the proposed ordinance
is disastrous, and for purposes of clarification, it is not valid. Mr. Miller critiqued the
impacts of the ordinance on neighbors, slab height measurement, water and sanitary
sewer. He added that enforcement would become even more difficult.
Mr. Scott stated that tonight’s action has no impact on the court case.
John Mohler, 4313 Brook Ave., addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Mohler
discussed slab height and its potentially devastating impact on neighbors. Mr. Mohler
described the unhappiness of nearby neighbors on Brook Avenue regarding obtrusive
building height of garages. Mr. Mohler said there is a health, safety, and noise concern
with such garages.
Chair Gothberg closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson is concerned about dictating to property owners that roofs on
accessory buildings must have a 3:12 pitch. He also takes issue with a 15-foot maximum
height. Commissioner Robertson said if the pitch requirement were removed, the
ordinance would stand quite well.
The Commissioners discussed flat roofs. Ms. Jeremiah explained the City’s current
policies as they relate to pitched roofs, including architectural requirements for accessory
42
buildings to conform to the roof style of the home and a prohibition on tall decks near
property lines. The latter is relevant because flat roofs can be used as decks.
Ms. Jeremiah discussed height measurement and provided examples of how staff felt the
measurement would prevent second stories close to property lines.
Commissioner Morris said he acknowledges Mr. Robert’s viewpoint but feels flat roofs
on residential accessory buildings are sometimes misused or collect trash.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to approve zoning ordinance text amendments
regarding detached garages and other accessory structures/uses. The motion passed 4-1-
0. (Commissioner Robertson opposed).
Ms. Jeremiah said this item will go to Council on July 1, 2002, for first reading.
43
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS
36-4, 36-73, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-166, AND 36-167
DETACHED GARAGES AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-24-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-73, 36-162, 36-163, 36-
164, 36-165, 36-166, and 36-167 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding
underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4 Definitions.
***
Building Height – Principal Building. A distance to be measured from the mean curb level
along the front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that portion of the structure having
frontage on a public right-of-way whichever is higher to the top of the parapet or rooftop
equipment, whichever is higher, of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; to a point on
the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof; to the upper most point on a round or
other arch type roof; or to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
INSERT SKETCH EXAMPLES – See Attachment
Height – Accessory Building. A distance to be measured from the first story elevation, as
defined by Building Code, to the highest point of the structure.
Height – Accessory Structure. A distance to be measured from the lowest exterior grade at the
base of the structure to the highest point of the structure.
INSERT SKETCH EXAMPLES – See Attachment
***
44
Sec. 36-73. Yard encroachments.
(a) The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements provided no permanent
structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment
agreement:
***
(7) driveways, parking areas, and pedestrian sidewalks subject to the requirements of Sec. 36-
162 and Sec. 36-361.
(8) fences and retaining walls subject to the requirements of Sec 36-74 and provided the
retaining walls are necessary to correct grade differences and height is minimized via terracing
where feasible. Where a fence is attached to a retaining wall structure, the retaining wall shall be
included in the fence height measurement.
(b) The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements for principal buildings
provided no permanent structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an
encroachment agreement:
(1) Bays and window wells not exceeding a depth of two three feet or containing an area of more
than 20 square feet.
***
(4) Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the height of the
ground floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of two feet from any interior side
or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot line and do not encroach on any side yard abutting a
street.
***
(c) The following shall not be encroachments on rear and side yard requirements for accessory
buildings: cornices, eaves and gutters; provided they do not extend more than eight inches into a
required yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than 16 two feet from all lot lines.
Building overhangs shall also comply with the state building code.
(d) The following shall not be encroachments on side and rear yard requirements provided no
permanent structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an
encroachment agreement:
***
(e) The following shall not be encroachments on rear yard requirements provided no permanent
structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment
agreement:
45
(1) balconies, detached outdoor picnic shelters, and recreational equipment.
(2) swimming pools, whirlpools, saunas and tennis courts provided they are a minimum of 5 feet
from the rear lot line, are enclosed by a privacy fence that screens the view from neighboring
properties, and any associated accessory structures such as the required fence, decks, patios, and
heating equipment meet all Code requirements including subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this
section, Sec. 36-74, and Sec.36-162.
***
36-162 RESTRICTIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
***
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of subsections (c)7, c(8, (c)9 and (c)10 of this section, the listed
terms are defined as follows:
***
(c) General Provisions
***
(7) Accessory structures shall comply with the following regulations:
a. No accessory building shall be erected or located within a yard other than the rear yard,
except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be
located within a side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located
between the front building wall and the front lot line.
b. No accessory building erected in the rear yard of a comer lot shall be located within 15
feet of any property line abutting a street except that in an R-2 or R-3 district an
accessory building may be located within nine feet of a property line abutting a street on
a lot of record which is at least 40 feet wide but less than 60 feet wide.
c. All detached garages and other accessory structures shall be compatible in design and
materials to the principal structure on the parcel.A detached garage located 60 feet or
more from the front lot line shall meet the following locational provisions:
1. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 12 feet in height and/or 26 feet in
width shall be located a minimum of two feet from any lot lines.
2. Garages where the building dimensions exceed 12 feet in height and/or 26 feet in
width shall be located a minimum of two feet from a lot line abutting an alley
and five feet from any other lot lines.
e. The total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the
area between the principal structure and rear lot line and in the R-1, R-2 or R-3 districts
46
and it shall not exceed 800 square feet. Except in the R-3 district, the total ground floor
area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed either 1,200 square feet or 25 percent of
the area between the principal structure and rear lot line for a two-family dwelling unit.
No single accessory building may exceed 800 square feet.
f. The height of an accessory building measured from the lowest level on the ground
within five feet of the foundation, in accordance with section 36-4, shall not exceed 15
feet, except parking ramps whose height is regulated by sections 36-166 and 36-167.
g. No accessory building other than a garage shall be located within three feet of any lot
line abutting lots in an R district.
h. Accessory buildings located less than six feet from a principal building on the same lot
shall be considered part of the principal building for the purpose of applying provisions
of this chapter.
j. An accessory structure 120 square feet or less in area shall obtain a zoning permit prior
to its installation and must be anchored in a manner approved by the city.
k. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall have a minimum 3/12 roof
pitch or greater.
a. Location -
1. Accessory buildings shall be erected or located within the back yard as defined in
subsection (b) above, except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a
garage and meeting the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 below, may be located within a
side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located in the front yard
as defined in subsection (b) above.
2. A detached garage located 60 feet or more from the front lot line shall meet the
following locational provisions:
i. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 15 feet in height and/or 26
feet in length or width shall be located a minimum of two feet from any lot lines; No
eaves, overhangs or other portion of the structure are allowed in the two feet setback
area.
ii. Garages where the building dimensions exceed 15 feet in height and/or 26 feet in
length or width shall be located the following minimum distances from any lot lines:
District Min. Interior Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. to Alley
R-1 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-2 7 feet 25 feet 2 feet
R-3 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet
47
iii. Garages on alleys shall be located and designed to maintain adequate visibility and
vehicle turning movements.
3. No accessory building, including a detached garage, shall be located within a side or
rear yard abutting a street.
4. No accessory building other than a detached garage meeting the requirements of
subsection 2 above shall be located within three feet of any lot line.
5. All accessory buildings and structures shall be located to comply with the principal
building yard requirements unless exempt by this section or Sec. 36-73.
6 No accessory building or permanent structure shall be located in a drainage or utility
easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement.
b. Size –
1. Accessory buildings on single-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts and on
non-conforming two-family lots:
i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings (detached
garages, storage sheds and other accessory buildings) shall not exceed 25 percent of
the area between the principal structure and rear lot line.
ii. the total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed
800 square feet.
2. Accessory buildings on conforming two-family lots in the R-3 or R-4 District:
i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not
exceed either 1,200 square feet or 25 percent of the area between the principal
structure and rear lot line.
ii. No single accessory building may exceed 800 square feet.
3. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall be smaller than
the ground floor area of the principal building on the lot.
c. Height –
48
1. Detached garages – Shall not exceed 15 feet or 22 feet in height as measured in
accordance with section 36-4 depending upon the location as specified in Sec.36-
162(c)7a above.
2. Parking ramps – Height is regulated by sections 36-166 and 36-167.
3. Other accessory buildings and structures hall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured
in accordance with Sec. 36-4 unless exempt by Sec. 36-78.
4. The height of all accessory buildings and structures shall be lower than the highest
point of the principal building unless exempt by Sec. 36-78.
d. Design -
1. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall be compatible in design and
materials to the principal building on the parcel.
2. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall have a minimum 3/12 pitch
on any roof section.
3. No plumbing for kitchen or bathroom facilities (including but not limited to toilets and
showers) is allowed in any detached garage or other accessory building. Hose bibs and
utility sinks are allowed.
4. Floor drains in garages and other accessory buildings must be connected to sanitary
sewer as approved by the City.
e. Accessory buildings as part of the principal buildings - Accessory buildings located less than
six feet from a principal building on the same lot shall be considered part of the principal
building for the purpose of applying provisions of this chapter.
f. Garages below grade level - Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a house is
eight feet or more above the established curb level, a private garage may be erected within any
yard provided one-half or more of its height is below grade level and it is located a minimum of
ten feet from any street line and five feet from any side lot line.
g. Permit required – All accessory buildings (including storage buildings 120 square feet or less
in area) shall obtain a zoning or building permit prior to installation and must be anchored in a
manner approved by the city.
***
36-163 R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
49
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-1 district:
(1) Garages and other accessory buildings in conformance with Sec. 36-162. Private garages no
to exceed 800 square feet or 25 percent of the rear lot area, which ever is less.
(2) Off-street parking areas in conformance with Sec 36-162 and 36-361.
(3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec 36-73.
***
(6) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(7) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
36-164 R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-2 district:
(1) Garages and other accessory buildings in conformance with section 36-162. Private garages
no to exceed 800 square feet or 25 percent of the rear lot area, which ever is less.
(2) Off-street parking areas in conformance with Sec 36-162 and 36-361.
(3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec 36-73.
***
(6) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(7) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
36-165 R-3 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
50
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-3 district:
(1) Garages and other accessory buildings in conformance with section 36-162. Private garages
no to exceed 800 square feet or 25 percent of the rear lot area, which ever is less.
(2) Off-street parking areas in conformance with Sec 36-162 and 36-361.
(3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with Sec 36-73.
***
(6) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(7) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
36-166 R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-4 district:
(1) Private garages and parking spaces, provided they meet the requirements of Sec. 36-162 and
36-361.
(2) Tennis court in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
(3) Private swimming pool in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
***
(8) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(9) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
51
36-167 RC, HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
***
(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-C district:
(1) Private garage and parking space, provided they meet the requirements of section 36-162 and
36-361.
(2) Tennis court in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
(3) Private swimming pool in conformance with Sec. 36-73.
***
(7) Keeping of not more than two boarders or roomers by a resident family provided the living
area for the boarders/roomers is within the principal building and does not constitute a separate
dwelling unit.
(8) Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises
provided the living area for the domestic/medical household staff is within the principal building
and does not constitute a separate dwelling unit.
***
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-24-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 15, 2002
[SIGNATURE BLOCK]
52
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1, 2002
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are 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 audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to approve authorization of the execution of the MHFA Community
Revitalization Fund Program Fund Availability, Disbursement and Loan/Grant
Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency for assistance in funding the pilot home improvement program
and the Contract for the Administration of the program with the Center for Energy
and Environment.
2. Motion to adopt an Ordinance Regulating Sale and Application of Phosphorous
Fertilizer, approve the summary and authorize summary publication.
3. Motion to designate American Liberty as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the construction of the building in Louisiana
Oaks Park at a cost not to exceed $376,586.
4. Motion to designate Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC as the lowest responsible
bidder for one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire
Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Central
States Fire Apparatus, LLC in the amount of $224,244.00.
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project
No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, ordering Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, approving plans
and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for entrance/identity signs at
Trunk Highway 169 and Cedar Lake Road and on the south side of Excelsior
Boulevard, east of Meadowbrook Road.
6. Motion to adopt the attached resolution regarding TS: 563 authorizing the
installation of a stop sign on south-bound Zarthan Avenue at W. 27th Street.
7. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
f. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002
g. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of December 6, 2001
h. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes of February 21, 2002
i. Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002
j. Vendor Claims
53
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
July 1, 2002
1. Motion to approve authorization of the execution of the MHFA Community
Revitalization Fund Program Fund Availability, Disbursement and Loan/Grant
Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency for assistance in funding the pilot home improvement program
and the Contract for the Administration of the program with the Center for
Energy and Environment.
Background:
At the Council Meeting of January 22, 2002 the Council approved a resolution supporting the
City’s application to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for assistance in funding
a pilot home improvement program. The program will leverage City, state and private
investment to address the rehabilitation needs of the170 properties recently identified in a
housing condition survey completed by Inspections as exhibiting significant deferred
maintenance. The program proposes to advise residents about rehab improvements and available
financial tools in a two-step process. Inspections staff will individually meet with homeowners
to identify needed improvements. This meeting will be followed up by an onsite meeting with
an advisor from Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) who will assist with rehab and
financial advice.
In May, MHFA awarded the City’s single family rehab program $209,100 from its Community
Revitalization Fund (CRV). The City’s application requested $336,095. Initially, MHFA
verbally informed City staff that full funding would be met by the MHFA co-funders; Family
Housing Fund and the Met Council. However, staff has since been informed that the entire
funding request would not be received and that the full MHFA pilot program award is $209,100.
Additionally, the Federal Home Loan Bank did not award the requested $277,000.
Staff believes the funds currently dedicated for program use by MHFA and City are adequate to
commence implementation of the program. This level of funding is estimated to cover 84
discount loans and 42 deferred loans for eligible residents, for a total of 126 loans. The table
below shows the original and the adjusted project scope.
Project Scope Original Adjusted
City Investment $401,095 $401,095
MHFA Investment $336,095 $209,100
Fed Home Loan Bank Investment $277,000 0
Private Investment $840,000 $840,000
Total project Budget $1,854,190 $1,450,195
# Discount Loans 84 84
# Deferred Loans 84 42
54
Staff proposes to resubmit revised applications to both the MHFA and the Federal Home Loan
Bank this summer and fall respectively. Limited funds and the fact that documented household
incomes were unknown were the primary reasons stated for not receiving full funding. Staff has
been advised that the income information documenting actual household incomes would enhance
the possibility of receiving additional funds. Income information is becoming available through
the inspection follow-up visits and the 2000 Census data. Staff will keep Council apprised of
future fund awards and the pilot program activity.
Execution of Agreements:
• The CRV Program Fund Availability, Disbursement and Loan/Grant Agreement authorizes
MHFA to reserve and disburse the CRV funds to the City and states the terms and conditions
for the use of the funds.
• The contract for professional services entered into with CEE will provide program
marketing, comprehensive building analysis and rehab advice, application processing and the
development of personalized financial packages. CEE would also originate grants and loans.
CEE provides similar services to the Cities of Fridley, New Brighton, Minneapolis,
Columbia Heights, Blaine and Champlin and administered the City’s Blackstone
Neighborhood Revitalization Grant/Loan Program. CEE’s contract is performance based.
CEE will only be compensated for services completed. It is estimated that services provided
by CEE will average approximately $382 per household for a total of $48,200. Housing
Rehab funds will be utilized to fund the CEE contract costs.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the execution of the MHFA Community
Revitalization Fund Program Fund Availability, Disbursement and Loan/Grant Agreement
between the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for assistance in
funding the pilot home improvement program and execution of the contract for assistance with
program administration with the Center for Energy and Environment.
Attachments:
MHFA Agreement
CEE Contract
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
55
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 1, 2002
2. Motion to adopt an Ordinance Regulating Sale and Application of
Phosphorous Fertilizer, approve the summary and authorize summary
publication.
Background:
At the Council Meeting of June 17, 2002, Council approved the first reading of this ordinance.
Provisions of the Ordinance:
This ordinance is intended to ensure that our residents have access to phosphorous-free fertilizers
at retail stores in the City and also requires retailers to display educational materials to assist
residents in making responsible choices about fertilizer.
A second part of the ordinance requires that signs be posted when fertilizer is applied. This
regulation is intended to assist in enforcement efforts once the statutory ban goes into effect.
These provisions are effective at the same time as the State legislative ban; January 1, 2004.
Education:
Through educational outreach, staff hopes to create awareness and demand for use of non-
phosphorous containing fertilizer and promote the State Statute and City Ordinance, which
regulate the use of phosphorous fertilizers. The City will be providing signage to commercial
retailers and require these items to be posted next to fertilizer displays.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared By: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
56
ORDINANCE NO. 2227-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34: VEGETATION
TO INCLUDE ARTICLE IV: FERTILIZER SALES AND APPLICATION
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 34 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, is hereby amended to
add a new Article IV as follows:
ARTICLE IV. FERTILIZER SALES AND APPLICATION
Sec. 34-210. Purpose.
Studies have determined that lake water quality is affected by the amount of lawn fertilizer and
other chemicals entering the lakes as a result of storm water runoff or other causes. The purpose
of this ordinance is to define regulations which will aid the City in managing and protecting its
water resources which are enjoyed by its residents and other users.
Sec. 34-211. Definitions
(a) "Commercial Applicator" is a person who is engaged in the business of applying fertilizer
for hire.
(b) "Noncommercial Applicator" is a person who applies fertilizer during the course
of employment, but who is not a commercial lawn fertilizer applicator.
(b) "Fertilizer" means a substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients that is
used for its plant nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have value in
promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not include animal and vegetable manures that
are not manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products exempted by Rule by the
Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
(d) “Commercial Retailer” is any person, firm, corporation, franchise or commercial
establishment providing goods and services for sale to the general public.
Sec. 34-212. Regulations for Retail Sale of Commercial Lawn Fertilizers.
Commercial Retailers providing lawn fertilizers for sale to the general public are subject to the
following regulations:
(a) Phosphorous-free fertilizers shall be made available for sale in adequate amounts at all
locations in the City.
(b) Phosphorous-free fertilizer and fertilizer with phosphorous must be separately displayed
and clearly marked as to whether or not the fertilizer contains phosphorous.
(c) A sign or brochure containing regulations and information about use of fertilizers
containing phosphorous will be provided by the city and shall be prominently posted next
to any fertilizer display.
Sec. 34-213. Regulations for Lawn Fertilizer Applicators.
57
Commercial and non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators are subject to the following
regulations:
(a) Lawn fertilizer applicators shall permit the City to sample any commercial lawn fertilizer
applications to be applied within the City at any time.
(b) All commercial or non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators shall, upon request of the
City, produce a copy of the product Material Data Safety Sheet of the lawn fertilizer used
for any fertilizer application.
(d) Commercial and non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators shall comply with the
provisions of the Minnesota Fertilizer and Soil Conditioner Law as contained in
Minnesota Statutes Sections 17.711 through and including 17.729 and amendments
thereto; and with Pesticide Control provisions as contained in the Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 18B.
(e) All commercial and non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators who apply fertilizers to
turf areas must post or affix signs on the property where the fertilizer is applied. The
signs shall comply with the following criteria and contain the following information:
(1) The signs must project at least eighteen (18) inches above the top of the grass line.
The signs must be of a material that is rain resistant for at least a twenty-four (24)
hour period and must remain in place up to twenty-four (24) hours from the time
of initial application.
(2) The following information must be legibly printed on the signs in letters no less
than 1/2 inch high:
(a) The name of the business, entity, or person applying the fertilizer; and
(b) The following language: "This area was fertilized on (date of fertilizer
application). For questions please call (phone number of business, entity
or person applying the fertilizer)”. The signs may include the name of the
fertilizer used and indicate phosphorous content of the fertilizer.
(c) The sign must be posted on a lawn or yard between two (2) feet and five
(5) feet from the sidewalk or street. For parks, golf courses, athletic fields,
playgrounds, or other similar recreational property, the signs must be
posted immediately adjacent to areas within the property where fertilizer
has been applied and at or near the entrance to the property.
SECTION 2. Sections 34-210 through 34-212 shall take effect 15 days following
publication.
SECTION 3. Section 34-213 shall take effect January 1, 2004
[Signature Block]
58
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2227-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34: VEGETATION
TO INCLUDE ARTICLE IV: FERTILIZER SALES AND APPLICATION
This ordinance states that retailers who sell lawn fertilizers must provide adequate amounts of
non-phosphorous fertilizers alongside phosphorus containing fertilizers. Also, at fertilizer display
area, said retailers must also provide educational materials that will assist residents in making
responsible choices about fertilizers. A second part of the ordinance requires that signs be posted
at sites when fertilizer is applied by commercial and non-commercial applicators. The intent of
this section of the ordinance is to assist in enforcement of State Statute which bans use of
phosphorous containing fertilizer effective January 1, 2004.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 1, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /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: July 10, 2002
59
CONSENT ITEM #3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 1, 2002
3. Motion to designate American Liberty as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the construction of the building in Louisiana
Oaks Park at a cost not to exceed $376,586.
Background
The City Council approved an agreement for professional design and architectural services with
the firm of Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc. (BTR) at their December 3, 2001 meeting. Since that
time, staff has been working with Bruce Cornwall from BTR on the design of the building.
Environmental Concerns
Bill Gregg from ENSR is the City's environmental consultant for the project. Mr. Gregg and
others from ENSR will be on site as necessary to monitor the soil that is excavated for the
building footings.
Bid Analysis
Bids were opened at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at City Hall. There were ten firms
that submitted bids, with the amounts shown as follows for the building work:
Company Bid Amount Alternate Amount Total Amount
American Liberty Construction $329,386 $47,200 $376,586
C M Construction $318,000 $73,300 $391,300
Cobra Construction $354,989 Alternate bids not
complete
N/A
Construction Results Corporation $369,950 $62,490 $432,440
Ebert, Incorporated $358,800 $55,000 $413,800
Flannery Construction Inc. $365,440 $63,350 $428,790
Gladstone Construction $359,900 $75,500 $435,400
Jorgenson Construction $399,459 $72,000 $471,459
Merrimac Construction $448,216 $52,388 $500,604
Socon Construction Inc. $333,000 $66,500 $399,500
The apparent low bid was received from American Liberty Construction. The City has not
worked with this company recently on any park construction projects. References for American
Liberty Construction have been checked and it appears that they have successfully completed
their previous projects. Staff does not see a reason to eliminate them as the low bidder and has no
reason to deny them as the low bidder.
There were five alternates that were bid with this project. At this time, staff is recommending to
definitely go with alternates 1, 3, 4,and 5. The alternates recommended are for the following
items: alternate # 3 is for gypsum fiberboard inside the building, which would increase the
60
durability of the walls. Alternate # 4 is a vapor extraction system to eliminate any odor in the
building from creosol in the soil which may not be needed but staff won't know until the soil for
the building is excavated. If it is not needed, we will not have to pay for the system to be
installed. Alternate # 5 is a heating unit that would provide better heat throughout the building.
Of the other two alternates, staff is not recommending alternate # 2, which involves the
contractor completing the ceramic tile in the bathrooms. Staff is able to do this during the late
fall and winter which would save several thousand dollars. Alternate # 1 was to construct a metal
roof rather than a shingled roof. Staff is recommending that a metal roof be installed. Although it
is more expensive to install, it does save on maintenance in the long term. If there are problems
with soil excavation that result in cost overruns, the metal roof can be eliminated and shingles
could be installed. Staff will keep the City Council informed as the project proceeds.
Timelines
The project will begin as soon as the contractor's construction timelines allow. The building
contractor will be working closely with Glenn Rehbein Excavating, Inc., the site contractor, to
ensure that both projects work cooperatively.
Public Art
Staff is working with Jack Becker from FORECAST Public Artworks to contract with various
artists to incorporated elements of public art into the park. A committee made up of Bruce
Cornwall, Nancy Nelson, Carol Humphrey and staff has chosen an artist who will be adding art
to the building by creating an etched design into the glass. This artist uses a sand blasting process
to create images in the glass windows and will be working on the window of the building that
faces southwest. All of the public art in the Louisiana Oaks Park will have a fun and playful
aspect to them to keep with the Children First philosophy. This will be paid for outside of the
contract with American Liberty Construction.
Funding Sources
The Louisiana Oaks park building is a 2002 CIP item. The cost of the project will be funded by
G.O. Bonds. The bids received were very favorable and appear the building will be constructed
close to the original estimated amount of $400,000.
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
61
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 1, 2002
4. Motion to designate Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC as the lowest
responsible bidder for one (1) Pumper (1250 gpm) Fire Apparatus for
Rescue/Fire Suppression and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement
with Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC in the amount of $224,244.00.
Background: Bids were received on June 5th, 2002 for the purchase of one (1) Pumper Fire
Apparatus for Rescue/Fire Suppression as provided in the 2002 Equipment Replacement Plan.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 1st, 2002 and
May 8th, 2002. A pre-bid conference for prospective bidders was held on May 14th, 2002. Bid
packages were issued to vendors nationally. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Vendor Net Purchase Price
Central States Fire Apparatus,
LLC $ 224,244.00 *
North Central Ambulance $ 231,769.87
KME $ 258,407.00
Precision Fire Apparatus $ 265,179.00
Staff’s Estimate $ 249,250.00
* Low Bid
Evaluation of Bids: A total of four (4) companies submitted bids. The “Net Purchase Price”
reflects the vehicle bid plus options #1 and #2 for all bidders. A review of the bids indicates
Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC submitted the low bid without or including the options.
Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC has satisfactorily constructed a number of similar Fire
Apparatus trucks nationally and has supplied St. Louis Park with a similar pumper in 2001. Staff
has been satisfied with the unit constructed by Central States Apparatus. Staff has been pleased
with the performance of Central States Fire Apparatus and with any warranty work performed by
them. Staff has determined that Central States Fire Apparatus, LLC submitted the lowest
responsible bid and recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $224,244.00.
Financial Considerations: Council authorized purchase of this unit in 2001 through adoption
of the 2002 major equipment purchases. In the 2002 Equipment Replacement Program, staff had
estimated and provided $249,250 for the purchase of this Pumper Fire Apparatus for Rescue/Fire
Suppression as a replacement for unit #215.
Prepared By: Harlan Backlund, Operations Superintendent, Public Works
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
62
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 1, 2002
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing
Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, ordering Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids for entrance/identity
signs at Trunk Highway 169 and Cedar Lake Road and on the south side of
Excelsior Boulevard, east of Meadowbrook Road.
Background: In 1995 the City constructed the first entrance/identity sign at the northeast corner
of Trunk Highway 100 and Excelsior Boulevard. In 1996 a second entrance/identity sign was
constructed at Trunk Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard. These two (2) signs were part of a
larger plan to construct entrance/identity signs at the major entrances to the City. The Excelsior
Boulevard Streetscape project from France Avenue to Monterey Avenue included a sign on the
south side of Excelsior Boulevard at France Avenue. In 2000 an entrance sign was constructed
at Park Place Boulevard and I-394. The two (2) remaining signs will complete this City
program, one at Cedar Lake Road and Trunk Highway 169, and one on Excelsior Boulevard east
of Meadowbrook Road.
Design Considerations: The City contracted with Hosington Koegler Group, Inc. to design the
signs and landscaping which will be the same design as the earlier projects. Each sign will have
landscaping in front to accentuate the entrance-gateway features. The sign also includes a front
floodlight source, similar to the other signs. The construction cost is estimated to be
approximately $48,000 each.
Financial Considerations: The estimated cost for each sign is $48,000 – for a total of $96,000
for both signs. Funding for the entrance/identity sign is proposed to come from the Economic
Development Fund.
Following is a summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources:
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 80,000
Contingencies $ 10,000
Subtotal $ 90,000
Consultant Fees $ 6,000
TOTAL $ 96,000
Revenue Sources
Economic Development Funds $ 96,000
63
Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated the following
construction timetable could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council July 1, 2002
• Ad for Bids July
• Bid Opening July
• Bid Award August 5, 2002
• Construction August/September
Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Attachments: Resolution
Plans
Prepared by: Carlton Moore
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin – Director of Public Works
Maria A. Hagen – City Engineer
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
64
RESOLUTION NO. 02-065
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.’s 00-19 AND 02-11
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.’s 00-19 AND 02-11
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO.’s 00-19 AND 02-11
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the installation of entrance/identity signs at Trunk Highway 169 and Cedar
Lake Road and at Excelsior Boulevard east of Meadowbrook Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the installation of a entrance/identity sign at Trunk
Highway 169 and Cedar Lake Road, and at Excelsior Boulevard, east of Meadowbrook Road
Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11 are hereby accepted.
2. The proposed projects, designated as Project No.’s 00-19 and 02-11, are hereby established.
3. Project No. 00-19 and 02-11are hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear
not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk,
and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five
(5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
65
CONSENT ITEM # 6
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of July 1, 2002
6. Motion to adopt the attached resolution regarding TS: 563 authorizing the
installation of a stop sign on south-bound Zarthan Avenue at W. 27th Street.
Background: The City received a request to review the uncontrolled intersection of Zarthan
Avenue and W. 27th Street for the possible installation of stop signs due to poor visibility
towards the East. This is a three-way intersection with W. 27th Street running East-West and
Zarthan Avenue intersecting to the North. The visibility to the East is restricted due to raised
yards and landscaping. In addition, should the owner of the Northeast corner lot park a vehicle
in the driveway off W. 27th Street, visibility is nearly lost since W. 27th Street curves at this
intersection.
On June 4, 2002, staff mailed a notice to all residents on Zarthan Avenue and the southern
portion of Alabama Avenue informing them of the resident’s request to install a stop sign on
south-bound Zarthan Avenue. Birchwood Park is located south of this intersection so no
residents there are impacted by this request. A total of five residents called in response to the
mailing. All supported the installation of the stop sign and three suggested stop signs also be
installed on W. 27th Street to make it a three-way stop. Based on the City’s Traffic Control
Policy, the three-way stop condition is not warranted.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time:
* 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the parking
regulations may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
3. Defer for additional study.
* Staff’s recommended action.
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared By: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Reviewed By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
66
RESOLUTION NO. 02-066
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION
OF A STOP SIGN ON
ZARTHAN AVENUE AT W. 27TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 563
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install a stop sign on Zarthan
Avenue at W. 27th Street, (south-bound approach).
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 1, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
67
CONSENT ITEM # 7a
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - April 17, 2002
Westwood Room - City Hall
Present
Commission Members: Cassandra Boddy, Shep Harris, Herb Isbin, Julie Kirsch, Patrick
Rogers, Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Kristin Siegesmund and Emily Wallace-Jackson
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary
Call to Order
Chair Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. New commissioners Shep
Harris and Julie Kirsch were introduced.
February and March Minutes: Moved by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and seconded by Herb Isbin
to accept the February and March minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
April Agenda: Members agreed to discuss writing a letter to the City Council on the
recruitment and selection process.
Commissioner Reports
Emily Wallace-Jackson reported that she attended the School District’s Cultural Competency
Forum and also spoke with the ECFE (Early Childhood and Family Education) staff about trying
to get preschool teachers to integrate diversity into their curriculum. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer
shared materials that can be provided to the schools. Moved by Kristen Siegesmund and
seconded by Cassandra Boddy to spend $45 to purchase these materials for the ECFE Advisory
Board. Motion passed unanimously. Rudelius-Palmer offered to do some follow-up training
with the school district.
Herb Isbin explained the role of the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions to the
new members. Isbin also mentioned that commissioners are welcome to attend the league’s
monthly and/or annual meetings.
Martha McDonell reported that two commissioners— Jake Feldman and Paul Pyykkonen—have
resigned from the commission. Due to Feldman’s resignation, there is now an opening for a
student member. Shep Harris volunteered to send a notice advertising the opening to the Echo,
the St. Louis Park High School student newspaper.
Patrick Rogers volunteered to speak with Pyykkonen to get his suggestions on how best to
follow-up on some of the ideas Pyykkonen had suggested at previous meetings.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer reported that she has submitted a proposal to do a human rights mural
with 20 fifth graders. She also mentioned that she spoke with Cindy Walsh, Parks and
Recreation Director, about the commission’s possible involvement with the City’s public art
68
project at Park Commons. Walsh told Rudelius-Palmer that the commission is a bit ahead of the
process at the moment, but there may be an opportunity for commission involvement when the
project gets further along. Rudelius-Palmer also reported that she asked Walsh to pass along her
desire that the Town Green art be family and human rights-oriented.
Rudelius-Palmer reported that she has been working in the Fargo/Moorhead area. She said the
Fargo Human Relations Commission has a work plan that commissioners might benefit from
seeing. She added that Moorhead is doing great work on putting census data to good use.
Moorhead has created 30 justice circles that looked at census reports and came up with
recommendations. They have now formed 11 citizen action teams to follow up on the
recommendations. Rudelius-Palmer felt Moorhead’s work would be a good example of
community involvement in human rights.
Old Business
Cultural Compass Diversity Forum: Members reported on the April 9th Pillsbury House
Theatre performance of “Under My Skin” which used theatre, poetry and music to offer a
socially conscious message in an entertaining, inspiring and thought-provoking manner. The
School District and City sponsored the performance as part of its response to St. Louis Park’s
increasing diversity. This is the first of a four-part series of community events aimed at
enhancing the conversation around diversity, ethnicities, and cultures. Herb Isbin noted that the
St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor ran a nice article publicizing the event.
Children First Ice Cream Social: The annual Ice Cream Social is set for Saturday, May 11.
The Human Rights Commission has had a booth at this event for the last two years. After a
discussion of past efforts, members agreed to offer coloring activities for kids using a wide
assortment of skin colors. Literature for adults will also be available. Emily Wallace-Jackson
and Cassandra Boddy volunteered to work at the booth. Martha McDonell asked commissioners
to call past commission members to recruit help for staffing the booth.
Shep Harris expressed a concern about having this event on a Saturday which restricts observant
Jews’ participation. Harris volunteered to call the Children First coordinator after the event to
discuss that concern.
Hate Crimes Response Plan: Members agreed to move this discussion to the May meeting.
Letter To City Council: As agreed by commissioners at previous meetings, Patrick Rogers
drafted a letter to the City Council requesting great commission involvement in the recruitment
and selection process for the Human Rights Commission. Commission members said they
would like to be involved in the interviews and receive information about applicants. Being
involved in the interviews would enable potential members to gain a better understanding of the
goals and vision of the commission. Commissioners suggested a few minor changes for the
letter; Rogers agreed to revise the draft and bring it to the May meeting for further discussion.
Essay Contest Winner: Martha McDonell reminded commissioners that they need to set a date
to have the Human Rights essay contest winner recognized by the City Council. Members
agreed to request the a spot on the May 20th City Council agenda.
69
Shep Harris volunteered to help recruit essay writers for next year’s contest.
Diversity Week: Because the most involved participants will be graduating this spring and their
advisor is leaving, Cassandra Boddy reported that she is unsure whether Human Mosaic will be
able to continue at the high school next year. Kristen Siegesmund suggested that Human Mosaic
explore integrating its agenda into the Student Council agenda and that the Student Council
might become the official sponsor of diversity week.
Work Plan: Several members questioned the meaning of the draft plan’s reference to a “Human
Rights City.” Several felt this was either too vague or too large a goal. Several other
commissioners felt the term could remain because it posed a challenge for the community. After
a discussion, members agreed to make some revisions to make the goal more understandable.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer reported that the Fargo Human Rights Commission meets in the morning
and takes testimony at its meeting which generates media attention. She felt this approach
creates avenues to share problems with the commission. She also suggested creating an
executive committee to streamline some efforts.
Kristen Siegesmund asked the new members if they had any interests they’d like incorporated
into the plan. Shep Harris suggested that the commission consider creating a two or three year
work plan rather than a one year plan. He also suggested fostering relationships with other
organizations to make the commission’s efforts more effective.
Julie Kirsch would like to see the interests of the disabled represented in the work plan. She also
suggested offering educational opportunities for youth and adults to help the community respond
positively to its growing diversity.
Moved by Kristi Rudelius-Palmer and seconded by Shep Harris to revise the commission’s
existing draft plan from a one year to a three year plan. Motion passed unanimously.
Members were then asked to look at the draft plan and be ready to finalize the plan at the May
meeting.
Set Agenda For Next Meeting
Hate Crimes Response Plan
Finalize Commission Work Plan.
Adjournment
Moved by Cassandra Boddy and seconded by Patrick Rogers to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
70
CONSENT ITEM # 7b
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2001 AT 7:00 p.m.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL, WESTWOOD ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Ken
Huiras, and Bob Jacobson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Jean Overend
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator and John McHugh,
Community TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator
and Linda Samson, Recording Secretary
1. Call to Order
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Bob
Jacobson, and Chair Ken Huiras; Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator Arlen
Mattern; City Staff Reg Dunlap and John McHugh; and Recording Secretary Linda Samson.
3. Approval of Minutes for October 11, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes:
Chair Huiras asked that elderly folks be changed to senior citizens on Page 5, top paragraph, Line
Chiar Huiras noted Commissioner Jacobson’s second to adjourn the meeting was omitted from
Item 10, Adjournment.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, to approve the
minutes.
The motion passed 5-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Browning, to approve the
agenda.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. New Business
71
5a. Time Warner Cable new rates and changes in channel lineups
Arlen Mattern, Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator, reported on changes to the
Time Warner channel lineup and its rates. Mr. Mattern said basic cable has increased .62¢, the
standard package has increased from $1.12 to $1.74 for an increase of 5% as of January 1, 2002.
Channel lineup changes take effect on December 28, 2001, and channel 98 will be added on that
date.
Chair Huiras asked what the objective of swapping channels 5 and 12 is? Mr. Mattern is unsure
but he noted both channels are on basic cable.
Commissioner Browning asked if digital service is necessary in order to receive any premium
services, and Mr. Mattern responded, no. Mr. Mattern added, effective December 28, 2001, one
can have a premium channel as long as one has a DHCT, subscribes to a premium channel, and
has the Navigator program guide.
Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator, said he is concerned by the statement that all premium
channels might migrate to digital, however, there is plenty of time shifting capability because
Time Warner offers 14 HBO channels. Initially, Mr. Mattern was concerned about the price
increase for the converter box and the migration of the premium channels from analogue to
digital, however, the premium channels are available as long as one subscribes to a DHCT and
has a navigator; and Mr. Mattern said prices for premium channels remain unchanged.
Commissioner Dworsky requested Mr. Mattern to provide samples of Time Warner’s boxes, etc.
at future Commission meetings.
Commissioner Browning asked if the problems associated with digital service and with the 2000
boxes have been resolved, and Mr. Mattern replied, yes. Commissioner Browning also asked if
the increase in price is a programming issue? Mr. Mattern said programming, hardware,
training, and overall expenses are responsible. Commissioner Dworsky noted it is a 6% increase.
Commissioner Hartman asked if the digital package includes basic cable. Mr. Mattern
responded it includes basic and standard cable. It was noted the price for Road Runner is $44.95,
and the price increase of August 2001 has not significantly impacted the number of subscribers
lost or gained.
Mr. Dunlap distributed copies of a handout, provided by Mr. Mattern, on frequently asked
questions regarding downgrading service and postponement of cable service for snowbirds,
which is called vacation rate option. John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator, distributed
copies of a handout regarding information slated to appear on channel 96. The information
states: Within 30 days after a notice of price changes in one’s cable service, a subscriber is
allowed to obtain a change in service tiers at no additional charge. The handout addresses the
vacation rate option for customers with a converter or digital box on each television, a limit of
five months is imposed.
72
Mr. Mattern stated the price for the digital or analog box and digital or analog remote will be
$5.95 as of January 2002, however, he will verify that price. The price for the navigator will
remain unchanged, and the digital access fee on the second box is $1.95 as opposed to the
bundled price. Commissioners will be updated on prices via e-mail.
Chair Huiras asked Mr. Mattern if Time Warner’s billing system is fully operational, and Mr.
Mattern said the billing system is being updated. Chair Huiras would like to see digital and Road
Runner bundled. Chair Huiras asked Mr. Mattern to extend the Commission’s appreciation to
Deb Squire, Time Warner Cable Director of Customer Service, for her informative presentation
to the Commission at the October 11, 2001 meeting.
Mr. Dunlap asked about the format of the billing statements, and Mr. Mattern said one will see
changes on a statement if one has a package. Commissioner Browning asked if a sample bill,
before and after the system update, could be furnished to the Commission and Mr. Mattern
responded, yes.
Commissioner Jacobson asked Mr. Mattern if outage reports have a new format, and he said they
do not.
5b. Set meeting schedule for 2002
The meeting schedule for 2002 is:
Thursday February 21
Thursday May 9
Thursday August 15
Thursday October 17
Thursday December 5
Tentatively, the Commission would like to meet with the City Council at a Study Session in
March 2002. Mr. Dunlap will keep the Commission informed of the City Council’s direction on
the meeting. A Telecommunications Commission report is generally due every March.
5c. Brainstorm work plan for 2002
Subject matters for the 2002 work plan may or will include renewal issues, since the St. Louis
Park franchise will expire in 2005 and the renewal negotiation window opens in February 2002.
The Commission also deliberated on future subjects: for February 2002, review of previous
year, programming partners for senior citizens, enlightening the public and seniors about the
benefits of cable television, and franchise renewal; for May 2002, address grants and
partnerships, interns and school district issues.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if issues regarding new technology should be included in the
work plan. Mr. Dunlap stated Commissioners may attend conferences to learn about new
technology and its issues.
73
6. Old Business
6a. Auditing Time Warner Cable franchise fees
Mr. Dunlap asked that auditing Time Warner Cable franchise fees be added to the agenda
because the motion specifically stated that something occur in December and the request for
proposal was not prepared in time for this to happen. Mr. Dunlap hopes it is suitable for an
amended motion as soon to “as soon as practical for Time Warner and Staff.” Mr. Dunlap would
like to send out the request for proposal, and the Finance Director and Staff would pick from the
proposals; after that point, the Telecommunications Commission would become involved. An
auditor will be involved as well as a Time Warner representative.
It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Browning, to amend and
extend the deadline from December to February for further information.
The motion passed 5-0.
6b. School District Funding
Chair Huiras would like information from the School District regarding quarterly programming
information and what is being shown.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to ask the
School District to furnish information on quarterly programming and its contents.
Chair Huiras is specifically requesting information on titles, length, and frequency. Mr. McHugh
said some information was received from the School District in June 2001, and he suggested
asking for a year-end summary from the School District.
It was moved by ChairHuiras, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to request a year-end
summary and quarterly moving forward.
Chair Huiras would like to know what the School District is doing with the $50,000 grant
awarded to them. Mr. Dunlap reported Mr. Tom Marble had stated the School District has an
account code to account for expenditures and can provide this information.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning that the Commission be supplied with reports or
usages as to franchise fees to include equipment and purchase date.
Chair Huiras also stated the School District supplied the Commission with an inventory report
last year, and the Commission is anticipating their annual request for franchise fees. When that
request is made, Chair Huiras would like information on their updated inventory. Mr. Dunlap
will issue a letter to the School District regarding the updated inventory information.
7. Reports—None
74
8. Communications from the Chair—None
9. Communications from Staff—Mr. Dunlap requested the Commissioners anonymously
fill out and return to him immediately a diversity form questionnaire.
10. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:23 p.m.
The motion passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Samson
Recording Secretary
75
CONSENT ITEM # 7c
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2002 AT 7:00 p.m.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL, WESTWOOD ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Bob Jacobson,
and Mary Jean Overend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Browning
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator and John McHugh,
Community TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator
and Linda Samson, Recording Secretary
1. Call to Order
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Bob Jacobson, Mary Jean
Overend and Chair Ken Huiras; Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator Arlen Mattern;
City Staff Reg Dunlap and John McHugh; and Recording Secretary Linda Samson.
3. Approval of Minutes for December 6, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Overend, to approve the
minutes.
The motion passed 5-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
Chair Huiras requested Item F be deleted from tonight’s agenda and placed on the agenda for
May 9, 2002.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, to approved the
amended agenda.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. New Business
5a. Hiring a consultant to review FCC Forms
76
Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator, distributed a memorandum regarding the recommendations
of the Audit Review Committee, comprised of Deputy City Manager Clint Pires, Finance
Director Jean McGann, Telecommunications Commissioner Dale Hartman, Community TV
Coordinator John McHugh, and Civic TV Coordinator Reg Dunlap. The franchise fee audit will
assure that the City has received accurate monthly and financial reports from the company and
that the franchise fees remitted to the City were accurate and complete. The review of FCC
forms will assure an accurate understanding of the forms and the cost and equipment rates stated
therein. Mr. Dunlap stated he is inclined to have the Telecommunications Commission endorse
the consensus of the Audit Review Committee: to audit franchise fees now, and consider
reviewing FCC forms sometime later.
Commissioner Overend asked for more information on the budget considerations. Mr. Dunlap
said the budget could be revised to allow the audit, and that if the audit identifies any franchise
fees that should have been paid to the City, Time Warner Cable (TWC) would be responsible for
the cost of the entire audit, according to the Franchise Ordinance. Mr. Dunlap stated the request
for proposal (RFP) for the franchise fee audit was sent to firms nationwide because there are no
firms in the Twin Cities engaged in that practice.
For the record, Commissioner Jacobson remarked TWC is in the process of readjusting several
things, including service changes, channel line-ups changes, and fee changes, perhaps it is a bad
time to do the franchise fee audit; and he asked if it would be appropriate to allow for a settling
down period? Arlen Mattern, Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator, responded it has
not been that bad as service, channel, and fee changes are annual events.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to approve the
Audit Review Committee’s recommendations as presented.
The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Dunlap called the Commissioners attention to the Action Requested of the
Telecommunications Commission on Page 3 of the Memorandum.
Commissioner Jacobson made a motion to present the motion as stated on Page 3, therefore, his
previous motion is amended.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to recommend to
the City Council that the City hire Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000
and 2001, as recommended by the Audit Review Committee.
The motion passed 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Huiras, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to defer the review
of the FCC forms pending the outcome of the audit.
The motion passed 5-0.
77
5b. Election of Officers
Commissioner Jacobson moved that the current slate of officers be retained: Bruce Browning,
Vice Chair; and Ken Huiras, Chair.
Commissioner Dworsky asked about election compliance and referred to the Commission’s by-
laws, which state no Chair may serve more than two one-year consecutive terms.
Chair Huiras moved to nominate Commissioner Dworsky for Chair but he respectfully declined.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Huiras, to nominate
Commissioner Hartman for Chair.
The motion passed 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Huiras, to nominate
Commissioner Browning for Vice Chair.
The motion passed 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to thank the
former Chair, Ken Huiras, for his good work.
Commissioners discussed the need to amend some by-laws, e.g., amend the by-law which states
meetings are held on the second Monday of the month. The amendments will be discussed at a
future meeting.
5c. Review annual Commission Report to City Council
Commissioners reviewed the 2001 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan, and discussed
the upcoming joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Dunlap asked for the Commission’s
input on how to improve the content summary of the work plan.
5d. Decide on joint meeting with City Council
The date for a joint meeting with the City Council has not yet been determined.
5e. Enlightening the public about the benefits of cable TV local programming
Commissioner Hartman asked about 5e. Mr. Dunlap said Item 5e was added to the work plan as
a way to publicize the value of local channels and local cable TV to citizens. Mr. Dunlap
suggested these viable and cost effective ways to spread the word: to advertise in the Sun Sailor,
do commercial radio ads, produce a cable show on the Civic Channel, or ask Teri Kelsh from the
Sun Sailor to write a news article. As an initial step, Commissioner Dworsky would like
information about the benefits of cable TV local programming to be available on the City’s
website.
78
Commissioner Overend asked about an apprenticeship program with the school, and she would
like to know if TWC is involved in any apprenticeship programs. Mr. Mattern said if positions
for interns are available at TWC, the interns are paid. Commissioner Jacobson remarked interns
at secondary schools are not paid. Commissioner Jacobson asked if TWC has student observers
visit their facility. Mr. Mattern said some students from North Minneapolis Career Center have
visited occasionally, and they job shadow in various departments, but there is always the issue of
liability.
Commissioner Jacobson asked Mr. Mattern if he would check into the possibility of having
student observers from St. Louis Park visit TWC. Mr. Mattern will do that, and he mentioned
that TWC provides tours of their facility for media classes.
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator, said volunteer opportunities for students are
available through Time Warner’s Local Origination Department that covers varsity sports and
concerts in the park.
Mr. Dunlap suggested the counseling office at the high school be contacted.
Commissioner Huiras suggested Tom Marble and Charlie Fiss be offered the opportunity to
address media students needs.
5f. Time Warner Cable Local Origination programming requirement shortfall
Mr. Dunlap stated TWC fell one hour short of their 20-hour per quarter local origination
programming requirement due to the unavailability of the St. Louis Park gym floor, and two
games were lost, and short School Board and City Council meetings last quarter. He added that
during the last four quarters, TWC averaged more than 20 hours per quarter, and they provided
nearly 33 hours for January 2002.
Commissioner Dworsky suggested the shortfall be noted and continue to monitor.
6. Old Business
See Item 5a of these meeting minutes for discussion regarding Old Business.
7. Reports
Commissioner Huiras noted how complaints to TWC have decreased since the second week of
January 2002, and Mr. Mattern said things at TWC are so much better due in part to the
completed upgrade in Minneapolis.
8. Communications from the Chair—None
9. Communications from Staff
79
Mr. Dunlap commended the Time Warner Youth Service Awards. Commissioner Jacobson
would like to know how it is publicized; Mr. Dunlap said through flyers.
1. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Huiras, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:32 p.m.
The motion passed 5-0.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Reg Dunlap
Recording Secretary Civic TV Coordinator
80
CONSENT ITEM # 7d
Official Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 5, 2002--6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Phillip Finkelstein, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Grove, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 15, 2002
Approval of the minutes was deferred until a quorum was present.
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 02-24-ZA
Public hearing on zoning ordinance text amendments regarding detached garages
and other accessory structures/uses.
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah reported the intent of the ordinance is to
simplify accessory building height measurement, basically from slab to peak of the
structure; add more stringent requirements to control the impacts of two-story and tall
detached garages and other accessory buildings; and regulate and control the impacts of
accessory buildings with flat roofs. Some additional proposed ordinance revisions
include: improve consistency between the Building Code and Zoning Code by clarifying
that building eaves and overhangs are not allowed in the minimum two-foot setback area;
codify policies prohibiting plumbing for kitchens and bathrooms in detached garages and
accessory buildings; codify policies that allow driveways, sidewalks and retaining walls
in setback areas; and clarify regulations for window wells.
Ms. Jeremiah said, at the appropriate time, staff will prepare information sheets with
clearly defined standards to be available for residents so they know exactly what they can
and cannot design.
Ms. Jeremiah stated the City Council has indicated existing setback requirements for
standard garages are generally appropriate, however, it does require some tweaking to be
sure that the maximum height is such that one cannot build a second story or add living
81
space with the addition of dormers. Clarification regarding eave and overhang setbacks
are also proposed. Ms. Jeremiah reported that two of the changes proposed are how to
measure the height of detached buildings, and to increase the setback for accessory
buildings greater than 15 feet to the peak to be the same as that for the principal building.
Commissioner Garelick arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Ms. Jeremiah said that staff recommends clarification that plumbing for bath and kitchen
facilities be prohibited, however, hose bibs and utility sinks would be allowed. Staff
recommends floor drains be hooked up to sanitary sewers.
Commissioner Morris pointed out that in reading the setback requirements, there is no
specification regarding encroachment into any established drainage and utility easements.
Commissioner Morris also stated that in the minimum setback for a detached garage to an
alley the direction in which a garage door faces is not specified, i.e., if the side of the
garage faces the alley, a two-foot setback is no problem, however, if the drive entry of the
garage faces the alley and the setback minimum is two feet, there is a problem. Ms.
Jeremiah said she will consider the ordinance for the City of Minneapolis regarding
garage setback requirements on alleys. Ms. Jeremiah thinks most alleys in St. Louis Park
are 14 feet wide, so the minimum clearance would be 18 feet, which should be an
adequate amount of space in which to maneuver.
Chair Gothberg said, in regard to driveways, sidewalks, and retaining walls, no maximum
encroachment is specified as to how much a setback may encroach. Ms. Jeremiah said it
is correct to say an encroachment may go to the property line. Ms. Jeremiah added that
when residents share driveways, staff highly recommends the parties enter into formal
agreements.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
John Miller, 3550 France Avenue South, requested the public hearing be continued so
that he can prepare his response to the proposed amendments, the specific language of
which were not available until the afternoon of June 5.
Commissioner Robertson said he would like to study the text amendments. He stated that
the following are problematic to him: how to define building height; the definition of
building height is taken, for the most part, from the Uniform Building Code as far as how
buildings are measured and that is a good place to start but to jump down and take the
height of an accessory building and measure it differently is an issue; and he has a
problem with a zoning ordinance stating one must have a pitched roof.
Commissioner Morris asked if green roofs would be prohibited. Ms. Jeremiah responded
with a brief summary of the discussions staff has had regarding roofs and sidewall
heights and the need to address height concerns while still allowing storage of
recreational vehicles, etc. She noted that under the current proposal, green roofs would
be subject to the same minimum 3:1 pitch requirement, which was discussed as being
82
consistent with the character of over 99% of the homes in St. Louis Park. The required
pitch would prevent people from using the roofs of accessory structures as decks, which
is in keeping with current restrictions on deck height near property lines for privacy
reasons.
Commissioner Robertson said he has heard many definitions of mean gable height, which
is the source of much confusion. He would like staff to clearly define mean gable height.
Ms. Jeremiah explained staff’s reasoning for providing a different way to measure the
height of accessory buildings. The mean gable has been difficult for homeowners to
understand and know in advance of truss delivery. It has also been difficult to confirm in
the field.
In response to Commissioner Robertson’s question of why not just prohibit second floors,
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, proposed the question: What constitutes a
second floor or second story? He said it is not always easy to prevent someone from
converting storage trusses to living space.
Chair Gothberg said he would like more opportunity to review the wording on the text
amendments, and he would like to see the sketches that will appear in the ordinance; he
favors continuation.
Commissioner Garelick would like this item to be continued.
Ms. Jeremiah asked if the Planning Commission would be looking for specific changes to
what has been presented so far. She summarized the points as: clarify what setbacks are
from drainage and utility easements so that there are no encroachments; consider if
garage doors face alleys and perhaps measure from the far side of the alley to determine
setback requirements; and consider changing the existing definition for principal building
height.
Commissioner Morris said if he finds additional concerns between now and the next
meeting, he will e-mail Ms. Jeremiah so that she may address the concerns.
It was moved by Commissioner Garelick to continue this item to June 19, 2002. The
motion passed 4-0.
B. Case No. 02-30-ZA
Public hearing on zoning ordinance text amendments relative to garage sales and
rummage sales in residential districts.
Associate Planner Julie Grove reported that garage sale regulations were inadvertently
deleted rather than moved to the Zoning Chapter of the Code during the recent
recodification of the Municipal Code. Ms. Grove said the proposed language would
codify existing policies that allow residents to conduct garage sales twice a year for a
period not to exceed 72 hours each time. Proposed language would also clarify standards
for garage sale signage.
83
Commissioner Garelick asked about signs, including real estate signs, left on public
property. Ms. Grove said staff is proposing to add language to the ordinance amendment
to clarify that current Code prohibits placing a garage sale sign in a public right-of-way,
on public property or on utility poles; signs would only be allowed on the property where
the sale is taking place. Ms. Jeremiah said this is not a change to current ordinance or
enforcement, however, it is difficult to keep up with the numerous violations, and signs in
the public right-of-way are confiscated by City inspectors. Commissioner Garelick asked
if there is any bite in the ordinance. Ms. Jeremiah said any violation of the code is a
misdemeanor. Ms. Jeremiah also stated that real estate signs must be on private property
and not on any public right-of-way. Commissioner Garelick said it is necessary for the
City to educate realtors that putting signs on public right-of-ways is a violation.
Commissioner Morris said enforcement is a matter of will by the City. Commissioner
Morris is uncomfortable with the ordinance because it is an area that does not need
regulating. What, he asked, is the difference between garage sale, rummage sale, and
estate sale; what is the definition of salesperson samples; and allowing religious
institutions to have sales but not other institutions is problematic.
Chair Gothberg agreed with Commissioner Morris that the language stating who may
have sales and where should be looked at closer.
Ms. Jeremiah said if no language is included in the ordinance code, sales are prohibited
because retail sales of any kind are prohibited in residential zoning districts. She said an
institution in a residentially zoned district may have sales. Religious institutions were
specifically stated because of the relative size of the signage such an institution may use.
She said the intent is to allow the same at schools and community centers and this can
easily be clarified.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Garelick said he will vote against the ordinance text amendments until he
sees a conformance in regard to enforcement, i.e., garage sale and real estate signage are
treated as one and the same, and he would like to have the ordinance language rectified—
all parties should be equal.
Commissioner Morris stated that he is not in favor of the proposed amendments before
the Planning Commission and he would like staff to have an opportunity to reflect on the
comments made by Commissioners. He agrees with Commissioner Garelick that the
removal of real estate signs and garage sale signs should fall under the same degree of
enforcement. Commissioner Morris would like to see better language, and to see garage
sale signs as a community informational type of issue.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to continue this item to June 19, 2002. The
motion passed 4-0.
84
NOTE: At this time, Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of May 15, 2002. The motion passed
3-0-1. Chair Gothberg abstained.
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business: None
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
6. Communications
A. Point of Sale, Maintenance Review – Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Mr. Hoffman presented a report on point-of-sale maintenance review, specifically
the Property Maintenance Code and associated programs. He distributed
information sheets regarding selling a property, if tenant or building use is
changing, selling or buying a home in St. Louis Park, and common housing
violations. Mr. Hoffman stated a seller must have a property Maintenance
Certificate to sell a property. In regard to liability, Mr. Hoffman said the City
makes no disclosure so there is little or no liability.
B. Recent City Council Action – May 20, June 3, 2002
C. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – April 25, 2002
D. Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda – May 23, 2002
In response to a recent BOZA meeting and discussion regarding green space,
Chair Gothberg inquired about green space and walking distance to parks. He
would like to know if City ordinance states a specific distance to green space.
Ms. Jeremiah said, in a mixed use district, the standard distance to green space is
specified, and staff used that in keeping with the rules of interpreting the
ordinance. Chair Gothberg would like staff to provide specificity regarding green
space recommendations.
7. Miscellaneous: None
8. Adjournment
Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary