The URL can be used to link to this page

04-11-2012 Council PacketCity Council City of Saint Paul Meeting Agenda City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 Council President Kathy Lantry Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Amy Brendmoen Councilmember Melvin Carter III Councilmember Russ Stark Councilmember Dave Thune Councilmember Chris Tolbert Council Chambers - 3rd Floor3:30 PMWednesday, April 11, 2012 ROLL CALL COMMUNICATIONS & RECEIVE/FILE 1 CO 12-11 Letters from the Department of Safety and Inspections declaring 852 Albemarle Street as nuisance properties. (For notification purposes only; public hearings will be scheduled at a later date if necessary.) Sponsors:Brendmoen 852 Albemarle St.OTA.pdfAttachments: 2 AO 12-14 Administrative order to correct the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) general fund revenues budget AO 12-14 2012 Budget AO - DSI Revenue Consolidation Correction.pdfAttachments: CONSENT AGENDA Note: Items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion with no separate discussion. If discussion on an item is desired, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. 3 RES 12-466 Accepting the gift of lodging from the Saint Paul Hotel for the annual Karl Neid Community Involvement Award 2012. Sponsors:Lantry 4 RES 12-551 Approving the agreement between the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) and the Association for Non-Smokers-Minnesota (ANSR), and accepting a grant of $4,000.00 to enable DSI to limit youth access to tobacco products. Sponsors:Lantry 2012 DSI & ANSR Agreement.pdf 2012 Non-smokers MN financial analysis.xls Sec 41.03 - Donations.doc Attachments: Page 1 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012 April 11, 2012City Council Meeting Agenda 5 RES 12-583 Authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to provide promotional offerings and prizes in connection with the June 9, 2012, Grand Opening Celebration of the newly constructed Como Regional Park Pool. Sponsors:Stark 6 RES 12-596 Accepting the donation of the use of space at the James J. Hill Reference Library as well as food and beverage donation, at a total value of no more than $500, for the Mayor's 2012 State of the City speech. Sponsors:Lantry 7 RES 12-601 Authorizing Anne Hunt, Environmental Policy Director for the Mayor's Office and Cy Kosel, Natural Resources Manager for the Department of Parks and Recreation, to apply to be a Minnesota GreenCorps host site and to receive up to two Minnesota Pollution Control Agency GreenCorps members to assist with citywide environmental programs and initiatives. Sponsors:Lantry 8 RES 12-622 Authorizing the City Attorney's Office to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, BCA, and MJIS. Sponsors:Lantry JPA e-charging.pdfAttachments: 9 RES 12-624 Authorizing the Police Department to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota to participate in the Postal Plan full scale exercise on May 6, 2012. Sponsors:Lantry State of Minn Dept of Health Postal Plan Joint Powers AgreementAttachments: 10 RES 12-632 Authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Ramsey County for the City's Design Group. Sponsors:Thune City-RCRRA Contract Agreement.pdf Addendum 1.pdf Attachments: 11 RES 12-639 Authorizing Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) to accept a contribution of $1,000 from the Saint Paul NAACP to purchase two plaques and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. Sponsors:Carter III Page 2 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012 April 11, 2012City Council Meeting Agenda 12 RES 12-640 Authorizing Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) to accept a contribution of $350 from Fire Fighters United to purchase two plaques and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. Sponsors:Carter III 13 RES 12-658 Extending the existing Outdoor Liquor Service Area for Taher Restaurant Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Forepaugh's located at 276 South Exchange Street in Saint Paul. Sponsors:Thune 14 RES 12-675 Approving the actions necessary to establish the Snelling-University Parking Improvement District. Sponsors:Stark Snelling-University Parking Lot Lease.pdfAttachments: 15 RES 12-686 Honoring Financial Literacy Month 2012 Sponsors:Lantry 16 RES 12-558 Approving the Collective Bargaining Agreement (January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2012) between the City of Saint Paul and The International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 21. (To be laid over one week for adoption) Sponsors:Lantry 2011 - 2012 Firefighters Contract.pdf 2011 - 2012 Fire Contract Summary.pdf Attachments: 17 RES 12-660 Approving the request by Wrecker Services, Inc. located at 200 East Lyndale Avenue North in Minneapolis for an impound lot located outside the limits of the City of Saint Paul. Sponsors:Lantry 18 RES 12-666 Authorizing the City to enter into Cooperative Construction Agreement 00906 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sponsors:Lantry Agreement00906.pdfAttachments: 19 RES 12-667 Authorizing the City to enter into Cooperative Construction Agreement 00769 Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sponsors:Lantry Agreement00769.pdfAttachments: Page 3 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012 April 11, 2012City Council Meeting Agenda FOR DISCUSSION 20 ABZA 12-3 Public hearing to consider the appeal of Walter Jirik to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue. (Public hearing held February 15) Sponsors:Carter III Application for Appeal BZA Resolution and meeting minutes Deadline extension letter BZA Neighborhood Notification Neighborhood correspondence 1of 3 Neighborhood correspondence 2 of 3 Neighborhood correspondence 3 of 3 BZA staff report BZA 2006 Resolution BZA variance application Site photos 1of 3 Site photos 2 of 3 Site photos 3 of 3 Union Park Letter Save Our Selby Packet.pdf Correspondence in opposition to appeal Correspondence in support of appeal Correspondence in support of appeal 03-13-12.pdf Hermanson Spreadsheet.xlsx Hermanson Spreadsheet1.xlsx Correspondence in support of appeal 3-14-12.pdf 3-17-12 Save Our Selby Open Letter.pdf Smith email 4-9-12.pdf SPACC Letter 4-10-12.pdf Diekrager email 04-10-12.pdf Attachments: Page 4 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012 April 11, 2012City Council Meeting Agenda ORDINANCES An ordinance is a city law enacted by the City Council. It is read at four separate council meetings and becomes effective after passage by the Council and 30 days after publication in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Public hearings on ordinances are held at the third reading. Final Adoption 21 Ord 12-18 Amending Chapter 344 of the Legislative Code to update and clarify the Pawn Shop Ordinance. Sponsors:Lantry Third Reading, No Public Hearing 22 Ord 12-21 Memorializing City Council action taken on March 7, 2012 granting the application of the Port Authority for the rezoning of 900 Bush Avenue, 881 Bush Avenue, 847 Bush Avenue, 860 Bush Avenue, and 840 Reaney Avenue from I2 General Industrial to I1 Light Industrial, and amending Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the Saint Paul zoning map (ZF #12-004-413). (Public hearing held March 7, 2012) Sponsors:Bostrom Second Reading 23 Ord 12-20 Amending the Zoning Map of Saint Paul as recommended in the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study. Sponsors:Brendmoen NEndComoDist6plan40AcreResol--Commission 2-24-2012.doc Planning Commission memo to Mayor and City Council--District 6 plan and zoning study.doc Attachments: 24 Ord 12-23 Amending Chapter 267 of the Saint Paul Legislative code pertaining to the definition of excessive police and nuisance enforcement services. Sponsors:Lantry SUSPENSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012 April 11, 2012City Council Meeting Agenda Council Meeting Information Web Meetings are available on the Council's website. Email notification and web feeds (RSS) of newly released Minutes, Agendas and Meetings are available by subscription. Please visit www.stpaul.gov/council for meeting videos and updated copies of the Agendas, Minutes and supporting documents. Cable Meetings are live on St Paul Channel 18 and replayed on: Thursdays at 5:30 p.m., Saturdays at 12:30 p.m., and Sundays at 1:00 p.m. (Subject to change) Page 6 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012 City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1CO 12-11 Name:OTA 1 Address Status:Type:Communications & Receive/File Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Letters from the Department of Safety and Inspections declaring 852 Albemarle Street as nuisance properties. (For notification purposes only; public hearings will be scheduled at a later date if necessary.) Sponsors:Amy Brendmoen Indexes:Order to Abate Nuisance, Ward - 5 Code sections: Attachments:852 Albemarle St.OTA.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Letters from the Department of Safety and Inspections declaring 852 Albemarle Street as nuisance properties. (For notification purposes only; public hearings will be scheduled at a later date if necessary.) City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Steve Magner, Manager of Code Enforcement CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor 375 Jackson Street., Suite 220 Saint Paul, MN 55101-1806 Telephone: 651-266-8989 Facsimile: 651-266-1919 Web: www.stpaul.gov/dsi 362 March 30, 2012 10-926719 HSBC Bank USA NA Macx 7801013 3476 Stateview Blvd Fort Mill SC 29715-7203 Shapiro & Zielke 12550 W Frontage Road #200 Burnsville MN 55337 Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) Dear Sir or Madam: The Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Unit, Department of the Department of Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement, hereby declares the premises located at: 852 ALBEMARLE ST With the following Historic Preservation information: NONE and legally described as follows, to wit: Mckentys Out Lots Tost Paul S 15 Ft Of Lot 26 And All Of Lot 27 Blk 3 to comprise a nuisance condition in violation of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45.02, and subject to demolition under authority of Chapter 45.11. On March 28, 2012 a Building Deficiency Inspection Report was compiled and the following conditions were observed. This list of deficiencies is not necessarily all the deficiencies present at this time. This building(s) is subject to the restrictions of Saint Paul Ordinance Chapter 33.03 and shall not again be used for occupancy until such time as a Certificate of Compliance or a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. All repairs must be in accordance with appropriate codes. Changes or additions to the electrical system, mechanical system, or the plumbing system may necessitate updating or upgrading the systems involved. This is a two-story wood frame single-family dwelling. An Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer March 30, 2012 852 ALBEMARLE ST page 2 The following deficiency list is excerpted from the November 18, 2010, Fire Inspection Condemnation Letter. DEFICIENCY LIST 1. Basement - NEC 110-26 - Provide and maintain a minimum of 36 inches clearance in front of all electrical panels. 2. Basement - SPLC 34.10 (3), 34.33(2) - Repair or replace the unsafe stairway in an approved manner. 3. Exterior - MSFC 1011.2 - Remove the materials that cause an exit obstruction. Maintain a clear and unobstructed exitway.-Remove all materials causing an exit obstruction on doors and windows. 4. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the door in good condition.- Repair or replace all broken exterior doors. 5. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the door latch. 6. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (1) b,c, 34.32 (1) b,c - Provide and maintain all exterior walls free from holes and deterioration. All wood exterior unprotected surfaces must be painted or protected from the elements and maintained in a professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint. 7. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (5), 34.31 (3) - Repair, replace and maintain all exterior surfaces on fences, sheds, garages and other accessory structures free from holes and deterioration. Provide and maintain exterior unprotected surfaces painted or protected from the elements. 8. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (7) - All parking spaces shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or durable dustless surfacing. Before any existing spaces may be paved, site plan approval must be obtained as specified in the St. Paul Zoning Code. Contact DSI Zoning at 651- 266-9090. 9. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (9) - Provide and maintain an average of 1 foot candle at the pavement of garages and parking areas. This work may require a permit(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090. 10. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (2) - Provide and maintain the property grade to slope away from the building to minimize the accumulation of water near the building. This work may require a permit(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090. 11. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (3) - Provide and maintain suitable ground cover on all exterior areas to control erosion. March 30, 2012 852 ALBEMARLE ST page 3 12. Exterior - SPLC 34.08 (10) - Repair, replace and maintain exterior sidewalks, walkways and stairs. 13. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (1) a, 34.32 (1) a - Provide and maintain foundation elements to adequately support this building at all points.-Repair and patch the foundation that is deteriorated. 14. Exterior-Throughout - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the window in good condition. 15. Exterior-Throughout - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the window lock. 16. Exterior-Throughout - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain the window frame. 17. Exterior-Throughout - SPLC 34.09 (3), 34.32 (3) - Provide or repair and maintain the window screen. 18. Interior - SPLC 34.14 (2), 34.34 (5) - Provide an approved electrical service adequate to meet the buildings needs. This work requires a permit(s), call DSI at (651) 266-9090.- Hire a licensed electrician to restore all electrical to the building and repair all exposed wires, broken fixtures to code under permit. 19. Interior - MSFC 901.6 - Provide required annual maintenance of the fire extinguishers by a qualified person and tag the fire extinguishers with the date of service. 20. Interior - SPLC 34.10 (4), 34.33 (3) - Provide a bathroom floor impervious to water.- Replace the bathroom floor. 21. Interior - SPLC 34.23, MSFC 110.1 - This occupancy is condemned as unsafe or dangerous. This occupancy must not be used until re-inspected and approved by this office.-Lack of basic facility. Lack of electric service and exposed wires creating a fire hazard. 22. Interior - SPLC 34.10 (5), 34.33 (4), 34.16 - Provide and maintain interior in a clean and sanitary condition. 23. Interior - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the floor in an approved manner.-Replace all floor tile/vinyl in the kitchen, bathroom, laundry room, and repair or replace the deteriorated carpet throughout. 24. Interior - UMC 504.6 - Provide, repair or replace the dryer exhaust duct. Exhaust ducts for domestic clothes dryers shall be constructed of metal and shall have a smooth interior finish. The exhaust duct shall be a minimum nominal size of four inches (102 mm) in diameter. This work may require a permit(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-8989. March 30, 2012 852 ALBEMARLE ST page 4 25. Interior - SPLC 34.11 (6) - Provide and maintain a minimum of 68 degrees F in all habitable rooms at all times. 26. Interior - SPLC 34.13 (3), SPLC 34.17 (2) - Reduce and maintain the number of occupants in the sleeping rooms to: 2 occupants 27. Interior - SPLC 34.09 (3) i - Provide and maintain an approved one-inch throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. 28. Interior - SPLC 200.02 (a) No person shall own, harbor, keep or maintain in the City and dog over three months of age without a license. Provide written documentation of current license to the Fire Inspector. To obtain a dog license, contact DSI at 651-266- 8989 29. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 605.6 - Provide electrical cover plates to all outlets, switches and junction boxes where missing. 30. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 605.1 - Repair or replace damaged electrical fixtures. This work may require a permit(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090.-Repair or replace all damaged fixtures throughout the building. Hire a licensed electrician to make repairs to code under permit. 31. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 605.1 - Remove unapproved exposed wiring and install in accordance with the electrical code. This work may require a permit(s). Call DSI at (651) 266-9090.-Remove all exposed wiring throughout the home. Hire a licensed electrician to make all repairs to meet code under permit. 32. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 605.4 - Discontinue use of all multi-plug adapters. 33. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 605.5 - Discontinue use of extension cords used in lieu of permanent wiring.-Immediately discontinue use of extension cords throughout the building including the second floor and basement. 34. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 1003.3.1.8 - Remove unapproved locks from the exit doors. The door must be openable from the inside without the use of keys or special knowledge or effort.-Remove all slide bolts and padlocks from the interior doors. 35. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 605.1- All light fixtures shall be maintained with protective globes if originally equipped. 36. Interior-Throughout - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the walls in an approved manner.-Patch and paint the walls throughout. 37. Interior-Throughout - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the ceiling in an approved manner. March 30, 2012 852 ALBEMARLE ST page 5 38. Interior-Throughout - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair and maintain the cabinets in an approved manner.-Repair or replace the bathroom and kitchen cabinets that are broken. 39. Interior-Throughout - SPLC 34.10 (7), 34.33 (6) - Repair or replace and maintain the woodwork in an approved manner. 40. Interior-Throughout - SPLC 34.19 - Provide access to the inspector to all areas of the building. 41. Interior-Throughout - MSFC 1003.3.1.8 - Remove unapproved locks from the unit doors. The door must be openable from the inside without the use of keys or special knowledge or effort. 42. SPLC 34.11 (6), 34.34 (3) - Provide service of heating facility by a licensed contractor which must include a carbon monoxide test. Submit a completed copy of the Saint Paul Fire Marshal's Existing Fuel Burning Equipment Safety Test Report to this office. 43. SPLC 39.02(c) - Complete and sign the provided smoke detector affidavit and return it to this office. As owner, agent or responsible party, you are hereby notified that if these deficiencies and the resulting nuisance condition is not corrected by April 30, 2012 the Department of Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement, will begin a substantial abatement process to demolish and remove the building(s). The costs of this action, including administrative costs and demolition costs will be assessed against the property taxes as a special assessment in accordance with law. As first remedial action, a Code Compliance Inspection Report must be obtained from the Building Inspection and Design Section, 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220, (651) 266-8989. This inspection will identify specific defects, necessary repairs and legal requirements to correct this nuisance condition. You may also be required to post a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) performance bond with the Department of Safety and Inspections before any permits are issued, except for a demolition permit. Call the Department of Safety and Inspections for more information at 651-266-8989. If this building is located in a historic district or site (noted on page 1, above, just below the property address) then you must contact Heritage Preservation (HPC) staff to discuss your proposal for the repairs required by this order and compliance with preservation guidelines. Copies of the guidelines and design review application and forms are available from the Department of Safety and Inspections web site (see letterhead) and from the HPC staff. No permits will be issued without HPC review and approval. HPC staff also can be reached by calling 651-266-9078. As an owner or responsible party, you are required by law to provide full and complete disclosure of this "Order to Abate" to all interested parties, all present or subsequent renters and any subsequent owners. The property shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed in any manner until the Nuisance Conditions have been abated and the Certificate of Code Compliance or Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. March 30, 2012 852 ALBEMARLE ST page 6 The Enforcement Officer is required by law to post a placard on this property which declares it to be a "nuisance condition", subject to demolition and removal by the City. This placard shall not be removed without the written authority of the Department of Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement. The department is further required to file a copy of this "Order to Abate" with the City Clerk's Office. If corrective action is not taken within the time specified in this order, the Enforcement Officer will notify the City Council that abatement action is necessary. The City Clerk will then schedule dates for Public Hearings before the City Council at which time testimony will be heard from interested parties. After this hearing the City Council will adopt a resolution stating what action if any, it deems appropriate. If the resolution calls for abatement action the Council may either order the City to take the abatement action or fix a time within which this nuisance must be abated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and provide that if corrective action is not taken within the specified time, the City shall abate this nuisance. The costs of this action, including administrative costs will be assessed against the property as a special assessment in accordance with law. If you have any questions or request additional information please contact Mike Kalis between the hours of 8:00 and 9:30 a.m. at 651-266-1929, or you may leave a voice mail message. Sincerely, Mike Kalis Vacant Buildings Enforcement Inspector cc: Legistar Approval list and City Council ota60135 5/11 City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1AO 12-14 Name: Status:Type:Administrative Order Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Administrative order to correct the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) general fund revenues budget Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:AO 12-14 2012 Budget AO - DSI Revenue Consolidation Correction.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Administrative order to correct the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) general fund revenues budget Body WHEREAS the 2012 Adopted Budget for the City of Saint Paul was adopted in the City's new Lawson Budgeting and Planning (LBP) system, and WHEREAS actual 2012 spending will take place out of the City's legacy Financial Management System (FMS), and WHEREAS the 2012 budget needed to be transferred from LBP to FMS via a mapping procedure, and WHEREAS this mapping resulted in DSI revenues to be split amongst various activities, all within the general fund, and WHEREAS the intention of the 2012 adopted budget was to have all DSI general fund revenues budgeted in a single activity, and WHEREAS this intention can be accomplished through the budget changes indicated on the attached financial analysis, which result in no net change to the revenue budgets of DSI or the General Fund as a whole, and WHEREAS RES 11-2437, which approved the 2012 City of Saint Paul budgets, was adopted by City Council on December 14th, 2011 and states that "the Director of Financial Services is hereby authorized to prepare the final 2012 Budgets in accordance with the actions taken herein and to equalize, balance or set the final department revenue sources and department appropriations as necessary", therefore be it ORDERED that 2012 Budget be amended as indicated on the attached financial analysis. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Saint Paul Financial Analysis 1File ID Number:AO 12-14 2 3Budget Affected:Operating BudgetSafety and InspectionsGeneral Fund 4 5Total Amount of Transaction:Net $0 6 7Funding Source:Currently Budgeted Appropriation 8 9Appropriation already included in budget?Yes 10 11Charter Citation:N/A 12 13 14Fiscal Analysis 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Detail Accounting Codes: 23 24 AccountingActivity/ProjectCURRENTAMENDED 25 CompanyUnitAccount(if applicable) Description BUDGET CHANGESBUDGET 26 27 Spending Changes 28 None. All changes are to financing codes. 29 30 Financing Changes 31 Move funding from the identified DSI general fund activities into the DSI revenue activity. 32 001001842800Permits5,728,371 (5,728,371) - 33 001001844022Certificate of Competency220,000 (220,000) - 34 001001852468Business Licenses1,506,823 (1,506,823) - 35 001001864080Zoning Appeals68,000 (68,000) - 36 001001856499Other fines and Penalties67,000 (67,000) - 37 001001844074Plan Checking1,265,694 (1,265,694) - 38 001001864111Site Plan Review62,000 (62,000) - 39 001002604116Cert of Occ - Residential 3 or More Units430,570 (430,570) - 40 001002402763Truth in Housing Evaluator4,500 (4,500) - 41 001001772600Dog License135,000 (135,000) - 42 001001844054Examination Fees44,000 (44,000) - 43 001002604031Cert of Occ - Commercial536,000 (536,000) - 44 001002404091Truth in Sale of Housing Fee175,000 (175,000) - 45 001001842700Trade and Occupation Licenses240,000 (240,000) - 46 001002574078Vacant Building Registration587,406 (587,406) - 47 001002604114Fire Safety Services184,000 (184,000) - 48 001001857305Transfer From Special Revenue Fund262,525 (262,525) - 49 001001777302Transfer from Enterprise Fund210,050 (210,050) - 50 51 001001822800Permits250,000 5,728,371 5,978,371 52 001001824022Certificate of Competency- 220,000 220,000 53 001001822468Business Licenses- 1,506,823 1,506,823 54 001001824080Zoning Appeals- 68,000 68,000 55 001001826499Other fines and Penalties- 67,000 67,000 56 001001824074Plan Checking- 1,265,694 1,265,694 57 001001824111Site Plan Review- 62,000 62,000 58 001001824116Cert of Off - Residential 3 or More Units- 430,570 430,570 59 001001822763Truth in Housing Evaluator- 4,500 4,500 60 001001822600Dog License- 135,000 135,000 61 001001824054Examination Fees- 44,000 44,000 The purpose of this administrative order is to consolidate all DSI general fund revenues into one activity. During the process of transferring DSI's revenue budget from the budget system (LBP) to the finance system (FMS), these revenues were split amongst DSI general fund activities. The 2012 adopted budget reflects these revenues all in one activity. This administrative order would better align the 2012 adopted budget in FMS with the 2012 budget as adopted in LBP. 62 AccountingActivity/ProjectCURRENTAMENDED 63 CompanyUnitAccount(if applicable) Description BUDGET CHANGESBUDGET 64 001001824031Cert of Occ - Commercial- 536,000 536,000 65 001001824091Truth in Sale of Housing Fee- 175,000 175,000 66 001001822700Trade and Occupation Licenses- 240,000 240,000 67 001001824078Vacant Building Registration- 587,406 587,406 68 001001824114Fire Safety Services- 184,000 184,000 69 001001827305Transfer From Special Revenue Fund- 262,525 262,525 70 001001827302Transfer from Enterprise Fund- 210,050 210,050 71 72 00100182Multi 3,686,952 - 3,686,952 73 74 TOTAL:15,663,891 - 15,663,891 Revenues already mapped to DSI Revenue Activity 00182 City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-466 Name:Accepting the gift of dinner and lodging from the Saint Paul Hotel for the annual Karl Neid Community Involvement Award 2012. Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Accepting the gift of lodging from the Saint Paul Hotel for the annual Karl Neid Community Involvement Award 2012. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Accepting the gift of lodging from the Saint Paul Hotel for the annual Karl Neid Community Involvement Award 2012. Body WHEREAS, the Karl Neid Community Involvement Award was established in 1993 as a tribute to the memory of Council Member Karl Neid and as a means to recognize city employees who exemplify a record of outstanding public service and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of life in Saint Paul; and, WHEREAS, the Karl Neid Award winners raise the prestige of municipal government by providing service above and beyond that which is required by their position, by enthusiastically engaging in community work outside of their position, and by earning the respect of the broader community; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds benefit in recognizing the efforts of city employees who provide superior service to citizens within their positions and throughout the city as a whole; and, WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Hotel has offered to provide a night's stay in the Saint Paul Hotel for the winner of the 2012 Karl Neid Award; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council accepts the gift of a night's stay at the Saint Paul Hotel for the winner of the 2012 Karl Neid Award; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council thanks the Saint Paul Hotel for their generous contribution in support of outstanding public employees. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-551 Name:2012 Agreement between the Department of Safety and Inspections and the Association for Non-Smokers-Minnesota Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Approving the agreement between the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) and the Association for Non-Smokers-Minnesota (ANSR), and accepting a grant of $4,000.00 to enable DSI to limit youth access to tobacco products. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:2012 DSI & ANSR Agreement.pdf 2012 Non-smokers MN financial analysis.pdf Sec 41.03 - Donations.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Approving the agreement between the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) and the Association for Non-Smokers-Minnesota (ANSR), and accepting a grant of $4,000.00 to enable DSI to limit youth access to tobacco products. Body WHEREAS, the Association for Non-Smokers-Minnesota (ANSR) has for years assisted the City of Saint Paul's Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) financially in their efforts to limit youth access to tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul has used this funding successfully in the past to reduce the frequency of point-of-sale advertising and other tobacco marketing practices aimed towards children; and WHEREAS, DSI and ANSR have also, and will continue to work together to educate the community on the promotional and marketing practices used by the tobacco industry designed to target youth; and WHEREAS, DSI will provide technical assistance to ANSR in the interpretation of relevant Saint Paul Codes of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, DSI will also assist ANSR with: analysis of data on point-of-sale approaches, ordinance review and enforcement, providing information to ANSR regarding the sale of "loosies", cigarettes, imitation tobacco products, novelty lighters, paraphernalia and outside signage, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council approves of the attached agreement between the City of Saint Paul Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) and the Association for Non- Smokers-Minnesota (ANSR); and City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #: RES 12-551, Version: 1 BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Saint Paul City Council thanks the Association for Non-Smokers-Minnesota (ANSR) for their generous grant in the amount of $4,000.00 and for their support of DSI in efforts to curtail youth access to tobacco products. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of Saint Paul Financial Analysis Template Instructions Purpose of the Fiscal Analysis Template: Fiscal Analysis Template Tab Budget Reference Tabs Drop Down Menus Tab ● The Drop Down Menus tab (grey tab) is used by OFS only to manage the drop down lists contained in the Financial Analysis template. ● Department staff filling out this form should not attempt to edit this page. ● The Operating Budget Reference and CIB Budget Reference pages (blue tabs) are read-only tabs. They contain guidance on what kind of mayoral and/or council action is required for budget adjustments in both the operating and CIB budgets, and include charter and administrative code citations for these actions. ● If you have questions about what is required to accomplish a particular finance related action, please contact your budget analyst. ● Fill out all of the information in Financial Analysis Template (green tab) of this file. Pop-up windows will appear throughout the file to provide more details on what information is required. ● The top portion of the file, including the fiscal analysis, will need to be filled out for any finance related action, including: - Grants: applying for, accepting and budgeting - Donations: soliciting, accepting, and budgeting - Budget amendments (both resolutions and administrative orders) - Other action with a financial impact ● If the action includes either a CIB or Operating Budget Amendment, the detail accounting codes section must also be filled out. ● If you have further questions, please contact your budget analyst. ● The purpose of this template is to standardize the information accompanying financial resolutions that come before the Mayor and City Council. This form will be required to be submitted as an attachment to all resolutions that contain budget changes, related to grants or donations, or otherwise impact the city's finances. ● Resolutions without this information will not be approved by OFS, and will be returned to the drafter. City of Saint Paul Financial Analysis 1 File ID Number:RES #12-551 2 3 Budget Affected:Operating Budget Safety and Inspections General Fund 4 5 Total Amount of Transaction:$4,000.00 6 7 Funding Source:Donation 8 9 Charter Citation:Administrative Code Section 41.03 10 11 12 Fiscal Analysis 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota (ANSR) enters into an agreement yearly with the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) and donates $4,000.00 to help DSI limit youth access to tobacco products through tobacco compliance checks of licensed establishments. In order to: Resolution, A.O., or Other Documentation Required? Resolution/AO Action Charter/Code Citation Template Agenda Section 1.)Recognize additional/unanticipated revenues (Ex. Outperforming revenues, outside donations, etc) Budget Amendment Resolution and Public Hearing - Mayor certifies that there are available for appropriation total revenues in excess of those estimated in the budget - Amend spending and financing to recognize new revenue in the appropriate company and activity C.C. 10.07.1 Budget Amendment or Gifts and Donations Public Hearing 2.)Accept a Grant a.) No Budget Previously Establish for the Grant Award Letter and/or Grant Agreement Budget Amendment Resolution and Public Hearing - Mayor certifies that there are available for appropriation total revenues in excess of those estimated in the budget - Amend spending and financing to recognize the grant in the appropriate company and activity C.C. 10.07.1 Admin 41.03 Grants Public Hearing b.) Previously Established Grant Budget Award Letter and/or Grant Agreement Resolution Accepting the Grant Funds (No public hearing needed) - Accept the awarded grant funds - Include in the resolution that the grant funds were anticipated in the current year's budget Grants Consent 3.)Transfer Appropriations within Departments: a.) Within the same Fund (Lawson Company)A.O.- Mayor may transfer any unencumbered appropriation balances within a department - Administrative order is prepared to execute the transfer C.C. 10.07.4 Budget Amendment Consent b.) Between Funds (Lawson Companies)Budget Amendment Resolution - Mayor recommends and council approves through resolution to transfer appropriations between companies - Amend spending and financing to recognize transfer C.C. 10.07.4 Budget Amendment Consent Operating Budget Changes Procedures Guide In order to: Resolution, A.O., or Other Documentation Required? Resolution/AO Action Charter/Code Citation Template Agenda Section Operating Budget Changes Procedures Guide 4.)Transfer Appropriations between Departments a.) Within the same Fund (Lawson Company)Budget Amendment Resolution - Mayor recommends and council approves through resolution to transfer appropriations between departments - Amend spending and financing to recognize transfer C.C. 10.07.4 Budget Amendment Consent b.) Between Funds (Lawson Companies)Budget Amendment Resolution - Mayor recommends and council approves through resolution to transfer appropriations between departments - Amend spending and financing to recognize transfer C.C. 10.07.4 Budget Amendment Consent 6.) Allow appropriations to lapse (non-capital improvement dollars) For Lapse of appropriations - Capital improvements see City Charter 10.09. For guidance on budget change procedures for accomplished or abandoned projects, see the CIB Project and Budget Changes Procedures Guide, numbers 1, 2, and 6. None - No action required. -All non-encumbered appropriations will fall to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. - All encumbered appropriations will be re- appropriated in the following fiscal year's budget for the same purposes C.C. 10.08 N/A N/A 7.)Enact Emergency Appropriation Emergency is defined as "a sudden or unforeseen situation affecting life, health, property, or the public peace or welfare that requires immediate council action", C.C. 6.06 Emergency Ordinances Budget Amendment Resolution - Resolution to appropriate emergency funds is adopted by unanimous affirmative vote by the council C.C. 10.07.2 C.C. 6.06 Budget Amendment Consent 8.)Reduction of Appropriations Report by the mayor of the estimated amount of the deficit Recommendation by the mayor to the city council of steps to be taken - Resolution or other actions deemed necessary by council to prevent or minimize any deficit C.C. 10.07.3 Budget Amendment Consent In order to:Resolution and/or AO Required? CIB Approval?Resolution/AO Action Charter/Code Citation Template Agenda Section 1)Close a completed project with excess balances Administrative Order (Completed by OFS) Periodic Review by CIB Committee - Amend project financing and spending - Transfer excess appropriation to contingency Administrative Code 57.09 (2) City Charter 10.09 - Accomplished projects Budget Amendment Consent 2)Close a completed project with no excess balances (but excess spending authority) Administrative Order (Completed by OFS) Periodic Review by CIB Committee - Amend project financing and spending City Charter 10.09 - Accomplished projects Budget Amendment Consent 3)Close a completed project with no excess balances and no excess spending authority None - Contact OFS with project budget codes to have the project inactivated in the finance system N/A N/A 4)Adding new spending to an existing project (without changing the scope of the project): 4 a ) Financing source is new money CIB Committee Review and Recommendation Mayor recommends via resolution Compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing - Amend spending and financing to recognize new revenue Administrative Code 57.09 (1) City Charter 10.07.1 Budget Amendment or Grants or Gifts and Donations Public Hearing 4 b ) Financing source is contingency (less that $25,000) All proposed uses of contingency must first be reviewed by OFS Transfers within a department require an Administrative Order (Completed by departments. Verified and approved by OFS) A.O.s require Periodic Review by CIB Committee Transfers between departments require a Resolution (Completed by departments. Verified and approved by OFS) - Reduce amount in appropriate contingency fund - Amend project spending and financing to recognize use of contingency Administrative Code 57.09 (3) a City Charter 10.07.4 Budget Amendment Consent CIB Project and Budget Changes Procedures Guide 4 c ) Financing source is contingency (more that $25,000) All proposed uses of contingency must first be reviewed by OFS CIB Committee Review and recommendation Mayor recommends via resolution Public Hearing - Reduce amount in contingency fund ("unallocated reserve account ") - Amend project spending and financing to recognize use of contingency Administrative Code 57.09 (3) b City Charter 10.07.4 Budget Amendment Public Hearing 5) Add a new project OR Expand the scope of an existing project: 5 a ) Financing source is new money CIB Committee Review and Recommendation Mayor recommends via resolution Compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing - Amend spending and financing to recognize new revenue Administrative Code 57.09 (1) City Charter 10.07.1 Budget Amendment or Grants or Gifts and Donations Public Hearing 5 b ) Financing source is contingency All proposed uses of contingency must first be reviewed by OFS CIB Committee Review and recommendation Mayor recommends via resolution Public Hearing - Transfer dollars from contingency to new project - Amend spending and financing to recognize new revenue City Charter 10.07.4 Administrative Code 57.09 (1) Budget Amendment Public Hearing 6)Declare a project abandoned Council Resolution - Identify project as abandoned - Transfer appropriation for the abandoned project to a separate contingency fund ("unallocated reserve account ") - Re-appropriation of the funds needs CIB review, mayor recommendation, and council approval (see either of the "Add dollars to a project" scenarios above) City Charter 10.09 Administrative Code 57.09 (4) Budget Amendment Consent 7)Replace an approved project with a new project 1) Declare an approved project abandoned or completed with excess balances (see process above) 2) Add new project after capital improvement budget is adopted (see process above) - Can accomplish both steps in one resolution Budget Amendment Consent or Public Hearing Departments Affected Budgets General vs. Special Fund Funding Source (Select Department)(Choose CIB or Operating)(Choose General, Special or Capital)(Select Funding Source) Multiple Departments Transfer of Appropriations City Attorney's Office Both Operating and CIB BudgetsGeneral Fund Grant City Council Operating Budget Special Fund Donation Emergency Management CIB Budget Capital Multiple Financial Services Multiple Funds Other Fire and Safety Services General Government Accounts HRA Human Resources HREEO Mayor's Office Parks and Recreation PED Police Department Public Health Public Library Agency Public Works RiverCentre Safety and Inspections Technology and Communications Water Department Sec. 41.03. - Donations. This provision shall not prohibit the city from accepting donations. The city may accept any form of donation subject to the following provisions: (a) All donations of any type in any amount of value shall be received and processed in accordance with proper and accepted accounting practices. (b) All donations shall be received and accepted by city council action according to the provisions of this chapter and according to reporting procedures established by the administration and approved by the city council. (c) All donations shall be made public and subject to periodic audit. (Ord. No. 17592, § 1, 10-4-88; Ord. No. 17654, § 3, 6-1-89; Ord. No. 17739, § 2, 5-29-90) City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-583 Name:Como Regional Park Pool Grand Opening, June 9, 2012 Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to provide promotional offerings and prizes in connection with the June 9, 2012, Grand Opening Celebration of the newly constructed Como Regional Park Pool. Sponsors:Russ Stark Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to provide promotional offerings and prizes in connection with the June 9, 2012, Grand Opening Celebration of the newly constructed Como Regional Park Pool. Body WHEREAS, The Saint Paul Department of Parks and Recreation plans to open the new Como Regional Park Pool on June 9, 2012, and WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation wishes to generate excitement in fitness activities and promote swim safety in connection with the Grand Opening Celebration of the newly constructed Como Regional Park Pool, and WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation wishes to provide promotional offerings and prizes consisting of fifteen (15) Family Swim Passes ($16.00 each), three (3) Swim Lessons ($55.00 each), and one (1) annual Fitness Package to recreation center fitness rooms and walking tracks ($30.00 each), for a total value of $435.00, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the promotion of fitness activities and swimming safety is a benefit to the public and consistent with the mission of the Department of Parks and Recreation; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Parks and Recreation is authorized to provide promotional offerings and prizes consisting of fifteen (15) Family Swim Passes ($16.00 each), three (3) Swim Lessons ($55.00 each), and one (1) annual Fitness Package to recreation center fitness rooms and walking tracks ($30.00 each), for a total value of $435.00 in connection with the Como Regional Park Pools grand opening celebrations. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-596 Name:Accepting the donation of the use of space at the James J. Hill Reference Library as well as food and beverage donation, at a total value of no more than $500, for the Mayor's 2012 State of the City speech. Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Accepting the donation of the use of space at the James J. Hill Reference Library as well as food and beverage donation, at a total value of no more than $500, for the Mayor's 2012 State of the City speech. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Accepting the donation of the use of space at the James J. Hill Reference Library as well as food and beverage donation, at a total value of no more than $500, for the Mayor's 2012 State of the City speech. Body WHEREAS, at 12 PM on Monday, March 26, 2012, Mayor Christopher B. Coleman of the City of Saint Paul, will be giving an annual state of the city speech to the people of Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, the Mayor will take this opportunity to inform the residents of Saint Paul about the current state of the city and also share his vision of its future; and WHEREAS, the James J. Hill Reference Library, which is serving as venue host of this free and public event, is donating the space, as well as some light snacks and beverages, which altogether do not exceed $500 in value; and WHEREAS, use of the space for the speech will encourage the public to visit the great facilities and educational resources of the James J. Hill Reference Library, and offer an opportunity for citizens to learn more about the state of our city; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council accepts the donation of the use of space at James J. Hill Reference Library located at 80 West Fourth Street, along with minimal snacks and beverages valued at no more than $500 for the purpose of hosting the Mayor's 2012 State of the City address to all the residents of Saint Paul, appropriates it for the intended use and thanks the James J. Hill Reference Library for its generous gift. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-601 Name:Minnesota Polution Control Agency GreenCorps Members Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing Anne Hunt, Environmental Policy Director for the Mayor's Office and Cy Kosel, Natural Resources Manager for the Department of Parks and Recreation, to apply to be a Minnesota GreenCorps host site and to receive up to two Minnesota Pollution Control Agency GreenCorps members to assist with citywide environmental programs and initiatives. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing Anne Hunt, Environmental Policy Director for the Mayor's Office and Cy Kosel, Natural Resources Manager for the Department of Parks and Recreation, to apply to be a Minnesota GreenCorps host site and to receive up to two Minnesota Pollution Control Agency GreenCorps members to assist with citywide environmental programs and initiatives. Body WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is committed to opportunities to make Saint Paul one of the most sustainable and livable cities in the United States; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency coordinates the Minnesota GreenCorps initiative, an Americorps program designed to preserve and protect Minnesota's environment while training a new generation of environmental professionals; and WHEREAS, Minnesota GreenCorps members are placed with a host site for an eleven-month term of service, where they perform work on focused environmental projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul, Department of Parks and Recreation has been awarded a GreenCorps member each of the last three years to work on both urban forestry and local food initiatives; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is again accepting host site applications from local governments, school districts, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations interested in hosting Minnesota GreenCorps members for the 2012-13 program year; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is eligible to apply to be a Minnesota GreenCorps host site to receive a GreenCorps member to continue in assisting City staff in the areas of green infrastructure and local food; and WHEREAS, representatives from the Mayor's Office and the Department of Parks and Recreation have met to identify areas of need within the City of Saint Paul that would benefit from the work of a Minnesota City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #: RES 12-601, Version: 1 GreenCorps member; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul authorizes Anne Hunt, Environmental Policy Director for the Mayor's Office and Cy Kosel, Natural Resources Manager for the Department of Parks and Recreation, to apply to be a Minnesota GreenCorps host site and to receive up to two Minnesota GreenCorps members to assist with citywide environmental programs and initiatives. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-622 Name:Joint Powers Agreement re: eCharging Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing the City Attorney's Office to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, BCA, and MJIS. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:JPA e-charging.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing the City Attorney's Office to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, BCA, and MJIS. Body WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, through the Commissioner of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minnesota Justice Information Services, is responsible for developing methods and tools for statewide criminal justice information system integration; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul wishes to assist the State to develop and implement a method of electronic transfer of criminal complaints from prosecutors to law enforcement agencies and the courts and to enable electronic signatures and electronic notarization of complaints; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota and the City of Saint Paul wish to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement which will permit development and implementation of an eCharging adapter between the Saint Paul City Attorney's Office Case Management System and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension; and WHEREAS, the State will pay the City for the necessary and actual costs of developing and testing such an adapter; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that the development of tools for statewide criminal justice information system integration is an important part of increasing public safety; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the appropriate city officials are hereby authorized to enter into the Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota providing for the development and implementation of an eCharging adapter between the Saint Paul City Attorney's Office Case Management System and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-624 Name:State of MN Joint Powers Agreement Postal Plan Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing the Police Department to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota to participate in the Postal Plan full scale exercise on May 6, 2012. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:State of Minn Dept of Health Postal Plan Joint Powers Agreement Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing the Police Department to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota to participate in the Postal Plan full scale exercise on May 6, 2012. Body RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul, Police Department is authorized to enter into the attached Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Health which includes an indemnification clause. This agreement will allow the department's officers to assist the U.S. Postal Inspection Service participating in the Postal Plan full scale exercise on May 6, 2012. Services include providing protection to postal carriers, perimeter and facility security and organizing, staging and supervising. Financial Analysis None City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-632 Name:City-RCRRA for Design Grp Services Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Ramsey County for the City's Design Group. Sponsors:Dave Thune Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:City-RCRRA Contract Agreement.pdf Addendum 1.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Ramsey County for the City's Design Group. Body WHEREAS, Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority wishes to hire the City of St. Paul OFS/RE Design Group for design services to prepare drawings which will designate suite spaces at the Union Depot Building; and WHEREAS, Council approval is necessary for intergovernmental contracts; and WHEREAS, the Design Group will be compensated for its work; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the proper authorities are hereby authorized to enter into the attached Agreement with Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority. Financial Analysis None City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of St. Paul 3/12 1 of 4 Agreement between Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority and the City of St. Paul This is an agreement between the City of St. Paul, Real Estate Division, 1000 City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55102-1660 (“Contractor”) and Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“RRA”). The RRA and the Contractor agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services The Contractor shall provide the drawings as identified in Addendum 1. 2. County Roles and Responsibilities The RRA shall provide the facilities, equipment, and participants, as specified in Addendum 1. 3. Time Services shall commence upon execution of this agreement. This agreement will terminate May 1, 2012. 4. Cost/Payment The total cost for this services provided by this agreement will not exceed seven thousand dollars ($7,000). The Contractor shall submit an invoice to the RRA after all services are provided. The RRA shall make payment within 35 days of receipt of a detailed invoice. Interest accrual and disputes regarding payment shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes §471.425. 5. Independent Contractor It is agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed as creating the relationship of agents, partners, joint venturers, or associates between the parties hereto or as constituting the Contractor as the employee of the RRA for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Contractor is an independent contractor and neither it, its employees, agents nor representatives are employees of the RRA. From any amounts due the Contractor, there will be no deductions for federal income tax or FICA payments, nor for any state income tax, nor for any other purposes which are associated with an employer-employee relationship unless required by law. Payment of federal income tax, FICA payments, and state income tax are the responsibility of the Contractor. 6. Indemnification Each party hereto agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and those of its officials, employees, representatives and agents in carrying out the terms of this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts and/or omissions of the other party and the results thereof. It is understood and agreed that each party’s liability shall be limited by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall waive or amend, nor shall be City of St. Paul 3/12 2 of 4 construed to waive or amend any defense or immunity that either party, their respective officials and employees, may have under said Chapter 466, or any common-law immunity or limitation of liability, all of which are hereby reserved by the parties hereto. 7. Insurance Each party shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining, either through commercial insurance or a program of self-insurance, property coverage, commercial general liability coverage, workers compensation, and such other insurance as will protect from claims which may arise out of or result from performance of the party under the terms of this Agreement. The Contractor shall not commence work until the RRA has executed this Agreement; the RRA will not execute this Agreement until the Contractor has submitted proof of coverage in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph to the RRA. Such coverage is to remain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement and evidence of such shall be provided throughout the term of the Agreement. The Contractor shall provide copies of all insurance policies to the RRA upon written request of the RRA. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver by the RRA of any statutory or common law immunities, limits, or exceptions on liability. 8. Waste Reduction The Contractor shall participate in a recycling program for at least four broad types of recyclable materials and shall favor the purchase of recycled products in its procurement processes. All reports, publications and documents produced as a result of this Agreement shall be printed on both sides of the paper, where commonly accepted publishing practices allow, on recycled and recyclable paper using soy-based inks, and shall be bound in a manner that does not use glue. 9. Audit Until the expiration of six years after the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement, the Contractor, upon written request, shall make available to the RRA, the State Auditor, or the RRA’s ultimate funding source, a copy of this Agreement, and the books, documents, records, and accounting procedures and practices of the Contractor relating to this Agreement. 10. Cancellation The RRA may cancel this Agreement without cause by thirty (30) days' written notice to the Contractor. The RRA may cancel this Agreement for cause by five (5) days’ written notice to the Contractor. 11. Non-Discrimination The Contractor agrees that, in the hiring of all labor for the performance of any work under this Agreement, that it will not, by reason of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, religion, national origin or disability, discriminate against any person who is a citizen of the United States and who qualifies and is available to perform the work to which such employment City of St. Paul 3/12 3 of 4 relates. When required by law or requested by the RRA, the Contractor shall furnish a written affirmative action plan. 12. Data Practices All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purposes in the course of the Contractor’s performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Statutes Chapter 13, or any other applicable State statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the Act and statutes, as well as federal laws and regulations on data practices. 13. Workplace Violence Prevention The Contractor shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the Contractor's employees, officials and subcontractors do not engage in violence while performing under this contract. Violence, as defined by the Ramsey County Workplace Violence Prevention and Respectful Workplace Policy, is defined as words and actions that hurt or attempt to threaten or hurt people; it is any action involving the use of physical force, harassment, intimidation, disrespect, or misuse of power and authority, where the impact is to cause pain, fear or injury. 14. Workforce Diversity The Contractor shall make good faith efforts throughout the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, to employ persons of color for all classifications of work under this Agreement, and shall, when requested by the RRA, submit a written report to the RRA regarding the efforts and result of such efforts, including employment by job classification. 15. Subcontractor Payment The Contractor shall pay subcontractors within ten days of the Contractor’s receipt of payment from the RRA for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The Contractor shall pay interest of one and one-half (1 ½) percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, the Contractor shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Contractor must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the action. 16. Unavailability of Funding The purchase of services from the Contractor under this Agreement is subject to the availability and provision of funding from the United States, the State of Minnesota, or other funding sources. The RRA may immediately cancel this Agreement, or a portion of the services to be provided under this Agreement, if the funding for the services is no longer available to the RRA. Upon receipt of the RRA’s notice of cancellation of the Agreement, or of a portion of the services to be provided under this Agreement, the Contractor shall take all actions necessary to discontinue further commitments of funds to City of St. Paul 3/12 4 of 4 the extent they relate to the Agreement or the portions of this Agreement for which funding has become unavailable. 17. HIPAA Compliance The Contractor agrees to implement and comply with applicable provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA, Public Law 104-191), as it may be amended from time to time. 18. Interpretation of Agreement; Venue This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. All litigation regarding this Agreement shall be venued in the appropriate State or Federal District Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Non-Assignability The Contractor shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest in the same, whether by subcontract, assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of the RRA. 20. Entire Agreement This Agreement, including Addendum 1, is complete and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the service identified herein. If there are any inconsistencies between the provisions of this Agreement and Addendum 1, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. WHEREFORE, this Agreement is duly executed on the last date written below. RAMSEY COUNTY REGIONAL CITY OF ST. PAUL RAILROAD AUTHORITY _________________________________ By: _______________________________ Julie Kleinschmidt, County Manager Print Name: ________________________ Date:_____________________________ Title: ______________________________ Approval recommended: Date:______________________________ _________________________________ Timothy A. Mayasich, Director Approved as to form and insurance: _________________________________ Assistant County Attorney 1 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SERVICES Todd Hurley, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Real Estate Division Telephone: 651-266-8850 Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor 1000 City Hall Annex Facsimile: 651-266-8855 25 W. Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102-1660 February 27, 2012 TO: Paul Nahurski, Regional Rail Authority FROM: Barbara Morin, City RE/Design Group RE: Union Depot Building Square Footage SCOPE OF WORK: The Design Group proposes to prepare drawings which will include Cad Drawings designating suite spaces, used by the occupants of each level in the Union Depot building. To these spaces, attributes will be applied to reflect their respective square footages, which can be then tied into an Excel spreadsheet to be used by county staff for tenant rental agreements and accounting purposes. In order to complete these layouts, we propose to provide the following services:  Obtain current Cad Drawings from RRA (or Ramsey County) – visit site to verify floor plans.  Determine boundaries for new offices, retail & or other tenants within building, for each floor.  Make any changes/modifications to computer drawings to obtain accurate square footages.  Finish product will be Cad drawings presented on 11x17 sheets, with colors designating for each of the tenant spaces, along with their respective attributes indicating the square footages for each suite. These attributes will be linked to a matrix, which can be linked to Excel. The information gathered in the attribute will be noted on the plan and include both the gross and net square footages for each space. Space designations include; building support spaces (utility, stairs/elevators, shared spaces), tenant office space, and train access areas. DESIGN FEES: Site visit to verify spaces $ 1,000.00 Drawing prep & formatting for attributes $ 1,000.00 Laying out boundaries & creating custom attributes $ 2,000.00 Linking Attributes into Excel Spreadsheet $ 2,000.00 Providing plans & spreadsheets $ 1,000.00 *Total Lump Sum Fee $ 7,000.00 *Lump Sum Payment of $7,000.00 will be due upon project completion. This cost excludes any construction, bidding or project management work relating to any construction work within the building. DESIGN TEAM: Barbara Morin, Certified Interior Designer ..................................... $105.00/hr Mike Michaud, Project Manager III ................................................. $95.00/hr SCHEDULE: Unless otherwise requested, the project will be completed by April 1, 2012. 2 CHANGES: In the event the scope of the project should materially increase or decrease, the fees for services will be subject to renegotiation. Any work preformed by this office and not indicated in this proposal shall be considered “Additional Services” and shall be billed at the hourly rate. Such changes and the method of compensation for changes must be identified and authorized in writing in advance by the Division. If you choose to accept this proposal, please provide an authorization signature and return a copy to my attention at the address noted in the letterhead. Authorized by: ____________________________________________ Date: ______________ Title/Dept: _______________________________________________ Attachment: Sample of completed project (CHCH Lower Level Flr) City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:2RES 12-639 Name:RES 12-639 Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) to accept a contribution of $1,000 from the Saint Paul NAACP to purchase two plaques and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. Sponsors:Melvin Carter III Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) to accept a contribution of $1,000 from the Saint Paul NAACP to purchase two plaques and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. Body WHEREAS, the Saint Paul NAACP has offered to donate $1,000.00 to HREEO, and WHEREAS, HREEO would like to accept this donation from the Saint Paul NAACP, and WHEREAS, the public purpose of this donation is the purchase of two plaques towards the renaming of former Station 51 to be known as the Freedom House Fire Station, and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council, on behalf of the residents of Saint Paul, accept this contribution of $1,000.00 from the Saint Paul NAACP and extend their sincere appreciation to this organization. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-640 Name:RES 12-640 Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) to accept a contribution of $350 from Fire Fighters United to purchase two plaques and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. Sponsors:Melvin Carter III Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) to accept a contribution of $350 from Fire Fighters United to purchase two plaques and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. Body WHEREAS, Fire Fighters United has offered to donate $350.00 to HREEO, and WHEREAS, HREEO would like to accept this donation from Fire Fighters United, and WHEREAS, the public purpose of this donation is to purchase two plaques towards the renaming of former Station 51 to be known as the Freedom House Fire Station, and help defray other costs associated with the EMS Academy. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council, on behalf of the residents of Saint Paul, accept this contribution of $350.00 from Fire Fighters United and extend their sincere appreciation to this organization. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-658 Name:Forepaugh's extension of existing Outdoor Liquor Service Area Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Extending the existing Outdoor Liquor Service Area for Taher Restaurant Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Forepaugh's located at 276 South Exchange Street in Saint Paul. Sponsors:Dave Thune Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Extending the existing Outdoor Liquor Service Area for Taher Restaurant Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Forepaugh's located at 276 South Exchange Street in Saint Paul. Body WHEREAS, Taher Restaurant Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Forepaugh's, located at 276 South Exchange Street in Saint Paul, has requested an extension of their existing liquor outdoor service area to include a newly constructed patio area in the front yard, located between the front porch of the building and the sidewalk; and WHEREAS, notice has been provided to all owners and occupants who own property or reside within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the establishment to which the license area is to be changed; and WHEREAS, there have been no objections received to the extension of the liquor service area; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that issuance of the license will not interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring property and residences and will not bear adversely on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the application is in order and there are no grounds for denial of the extension of the license; now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, that an extension of the existing liquor outdoor service area into a new patio located in the front yard of the property is granted to Taher Restaurant Acquisitions LLC d/b/a Forepaugh's, located at 276 South Exchange Street in Saint Paul. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-675 Name:Snelling-University Parking Improvement District Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Approving the actions necessary to establish the Snelling-University Parking Improvement District. Sponsors:Russ Stark Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Snelling-University Parking Lot Lease.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Approving the actions necessary to establish the Snelling-University Parking Improvement District. Body WHEREAS: To mitigate the loss of 85% of the parking on University Avenue due to light rail development, on August 12, 2009, by Resolution 09-08/12, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota approved the Neighborhood Commercial Parking Pilot Program and allocated funding to improve off-street parking facilities; and WHEREAS: On June 23, 2010, by Resolution 10-06/23 the HRA approved $1.325 million in funding from the Parking Program for 24 projects on University Avenue, including $250,000 to develop the Snelling-University Parking Improvement District in the block behind the northwest corner of Snelling and University; and WHEREAS: Establishing the Snelling-University PID requires leasing land from private owners and developing a public parking lot with funding invested as tenant improvements from the Neighborhood Commercial Parking Pilot Program: and WHEREAS: Maintaining the Snelling-University PID requires above-standard services that must come from sources other than the General Fund and the installation of pay parking in the PID will generate a new source of revenue for the City that does not now exist; and WHEREAS: The property owners who will benefit from the PID will incorporate a business association to operate and maintain the public parking lot: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota hereby: • Approves the Lease of parking from 6 owners in the block behind the northwest corner of Snelling and University in a form substantially similar to that shown in Attachment A, and authorizes the Director of the Department of Planning and Economic Development to sign it on behalf of the City; and • Authorizes the Department of Public Works to install, and the Police Department to enforce, pay-parking kiosks in the Snelling-University Parking District; and • Authorizes the Office of Financial Services to dedicate pay-parking revenues net of all operating costs to pay for the operation and maintenance of the Snelling-University Parking Improvement District; and • Authorizes the Department of Planning and Economic Development to contract with the Snelling- City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #: RES 12-675, Version: 1 University Business Association, composed of the commercial property owners who will benefit from the Parking Improvement District, to operate and maintain the public pay-parking facility. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ 1 [Reserved for Recording Information] ________________________________________________________________________ PARKING LOT LEASE AGREEMENT THIS PARKING LOT LEASE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2012 by and among the persons and entities listed on the signature pages of this Agreement (individually referred to as an “Owner” and collectively as the “Owners”) and the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (“City”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owners are the record owners of those certain parcels of real property located in Ramsey County, Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and described in the survey in Exhibit B attached hereto, and (collectively the parcels are referred to as the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is in the block bounded by University Avenue, Sherburne Avenue, Fry Street, and Snelling Avenue; and WHEREAS, to help mitigate the loss of significant parking on University Avenue when light rail transit is constructed in 2011 and 2012, the City desires to lease the Property from the Owners and to make improvements to the Property (“Improvements”) for use as a public parking lot; and WHEREAS, the owners of parcels 7, 8, 9, and 10 described in Exhibit A attached hereto together with certain adjacent owners (the “Incorporators”) agree to form an association (the “Association”) that will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Improvements, and the City agrees to contract with the Association to do so, and to equitably assess all of the operating costs on all the benefitted property owners under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 459.14, whether or not they lease land to the City for developing a public parking lot; and WHEREAS, the Owners collectively desire to lease the Property to the City for a public parking lot on the terms contained in this Agreement, and the persons and entities that have a mortgage or other interest in the Property have consented to this Agreement: 2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sums described in Exhibit B and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the Owners and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Lease of Property; Term. The Owners hereby demise and lease to the City and the City hereby takes from and leases from the Owners (the “Lease”) for the purpose of a public parking lot and pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, that part of the Property owned by each of them and described in the survey attached hereto as Exhibit B and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Lease Area”). The term of the Lease shall begin on __________, 2012 and terminate on ____________, 2027 The City may terminate this Lease upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Owners. 2. Lease of Property: Rent. The City agrees to pay as rent to the owners of the parcels legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, those amounts described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Rent”). In the event of early termination of this Lease, Rent will be prorated to the date of termination 3. No Interference with Lease. The Owners agree that no obstructions which would prevent, restrict or otherwise hinder the reasonable use of the parking lot and passage of pedestrians or vehicles over any portion of the Lease Area shall be erected, condoned or permitted to endure, nor shall any other conduct, passive or affirmative, be permitted which would in any manner restrict the City’s right to fully utilize the Lease Area for the purposes permitted herein. 4. Improvements. The City is permitted to make improvements to the Lease Area for use as a parking lot at any time during the term of this Agreement (“Improvements”) including without limitation, grading, excavating, stormwater management, planting of trees, shrubs and other landscaping, sidewalks, pay-parking meters and kiosks, curbing, signage, pavers, retaining walls, lighting, security cameras, striping, and centralizing refuse and recycling facilities, as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto. The City will pay for the cost of the initial Improvements from its own funds and these amounts will not be assessed against the benefitted property owners. The costs of any subsequent Improvements, and any costs necessary to return the Property to a useable state at the termination of the Lease, shall be assessed against the benefitted property owners. The Lease Area will be open to the public for parking according to certain time and permit limits which the Association will determine and the City will enforce. The City shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits to make the Improvements. 5. Association; Operation, Maintenance and Repair; Taxes. The Association will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Improvements and Lease Area, in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations, to the end that the parking lot shall be kept in good condition and repair. This includes, without limiting the generality of the foregoing: sweeping and trash removal, snow and ice removal, patching and repairing of potholes, and from time to time, resealing, restriping, and resurfacing the pavement as may be reasonably necessary or advisable. The City and Association will enter into a parking operation and management agreement for the Property (the “Operation and 3 Management Agreement”). The operating costs of the Lease Area, including all Rent, will be assessed against the benefitted property owners. and the assessments shall be used by the Association to pay such costs. On or before May 31st of each year, the Association will annually prepare and submit to the City for its review and approval, an annual operating budget for the Property. Upon termination of this Lease, the Improvements may be left in place by the City and shall become the property of the Owners to the extent the improvements are made on their own parcel. To the extent that the City does incur some costs to return the Property to a state useable by the owners upon termination of this Lease, such costs will be assessed against the benefitted property owners. The Owners shall be responsible for paying all real and personal property taxes on their own parcels. 6. Duration: Binding Effect. The terms, conditions and covenants set forth in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Owners of the Property and the City, and his, her, or its respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 7. Amendment. No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition, provision or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing, signed by the parties to be bound. 8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable or void, such provision shall be deemed to be severable and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining terms of this Agreement. 9. Governing Law, Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota. All actions involving the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement shall be venued in Ramsey County district court. 10. Notices. Any notice required or permitted hereunder shall be given by (i) personal delivery upon an authorized representative of a party hereto, or (ii) United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (iii) facsimile copy followed by mailed notice, or (iv) a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier, in each case properly addressed as follows: If to City: City of Saint Paul, Minnesota Dept. of Planning and Economic Development Attn: Project Services Manager, Fax: 651-228-3314 25 West 4th Street, Suite 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 If to Owners: For Parcels #1 through #4, 1608-18 Sherburne: Beth Mahalla, Fax 651-634-6301 American Bank of St Paul 1060 Dakota Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 4 For Parcel #5, 1622 Sherburne: James S. and Nancy Z Hartung 1622 Sherburne Ave. Saint Paul, MN 55114 For Parcel #6, 1630-1632 Sherburne: Jim Daly, 651.214.9265 10550 Dale Rd Woodbury MN 55129 For Parcels #7 and # 8, 1625-31 University: Karen L Desens 678 Terrace Dr Roseville MN 55113-2149 And: Jordan D. Anderson, 651.644.1773 Valid Ventures 1623 University Ave. West Saint Paul, MN 55104 For Parcel #9, 1619 University: Elisa Nafstad, 651.603.8887 c/o Salon Elise 1619 University Ave. W. Saint Paul, MN 55114 For Parcel #10, 1613 University: Bill K. Nicklow, 763-545-3419 c/o BKN Properties LLC 130 Oregon Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55426 Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit, as aforesaid; provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such deposit. Any party may change his or its address for the service of notice by giving notice of such change ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such change. 11. Recording. The Owners and City agree that this Agreement shall be recorded against all effected parcels of real property constituting the Property at the City’s cost. 12. No Partnership. Nothing contained in this Agreement and no action by the parties hereto shall be deemed or construed by the parties or by any third person to create the relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture or any association between the Owners and City, except for the association to be created by the Owners. 5 13. Entire Agreement. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement and its exhibits represent the full and entire agreement of the parties relating to the use of the Property. This Agreement supersedes and replaces any prior agreements, written or oral. 14. Title. The Owners represent and warrant that they own in fee simple their parcels of the Property legally described in Exhibit A and shown on a survey in Exhibit B attached hereto, and there are no liens, mortgages, purchase agreements, options, leases, rights of first refusal or any other lien, interest or encumbrance against their parcels except as set forth on the Consents to Parking Lot Lease Agreement which are on the signature pages of this Agreement. 15. 1622 Sherburne Avenue Early Termination: Permission is hereby given for the existing or future owner of 1622 Sherburne Avenue to terminate their portion of this lease before its expiration, upon 90 days written notice to the City, and at their own expense to install a garage for their property accessible off the alley provided that they restore the Improvements to the adjacent properties to a functional and attractive condition. 16. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. A facsimile, photocopy or pdf signature of the signature page is permitted and is as legally effective as an original signature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owners and City have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. 6 Owner of Parcels #1, #2, #3, and #4 1608-1618 Sherburne Avenue AMERICAN BANK OF SAINT PAUL, FKA MIDWAY BANK, By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by , the of American Bank of Saint Paul, fka Midway Bank, on behalf of American Bank of Saint Paul. Notary Public 7 Owner of Parcel #5 1622 Sherburne Avenue By: James S. Hartung By: Nancy Z. Hartung STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by James S. Hartung and Nancy Z. Hartung, husband and wife. Notary Public 8 Owner of Parcel #6 1630-1632 Sherburne Avenue 1630 SHERBURNE, LLC By: James K. Daly Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by James K. Daly, the of 1630 Sherburne, LLC, the owner of 1630-1632 Sherburne Avenue, on behalf of 1630 Sherburne, LLC. Notary Public 9 Consent to Parking Lot Lease Agreement for Parcel #6 1630-1632 Sherburne Avenue By Mortgage or Other Interest Holder in the Property The undersigned, , a of Unity Bank, being the holder of a certain mortgage dated April 19, 2011, and filed of record May 2, 2011 in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2141087 hereby consents to the foregoing Parking Lot Lease Agreement and agrees that its interest in the Property is subordinate and junior in all respects to the lease granted to the City. UNITY BANK By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ______________, 2012 by _________________________________, the _______________________ of Unity Bank a limited liability company organized under the laws of Minnesota on behalf of Unity Bank. Notary Public 10 Owner of Parcels #7 and #8 1625-1631 University Avenue West By: Jordan Anderson, individually VALID VENTURES, LLC By: Jordan Anderson Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by Jordan D. Anderson and Valid Ventures, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, the purchaser under a contract for deed dated June 30, 2006 and filed of record as document number 3983543 in the Office of the County Recorder and filed of record as document number 1980564 with the Registrar of Titles in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota of 1625-1631 University Avenue West. Notary Public 11 Consent to Parking Lot Lease Agreement for Parcels #7 and #8 1625-1631 University Avenue West By Mortgage or Other Interest Holder in the Property The undersigned, Karen L. Desens, a single person, being the fee owner of 1625-1631 University Avenue West, and the seller of a certain contract for deed dated June 30, 2006 and filed of record as document number 3983543 in the Office of the County Recorder and filed of record as document number 1980564 with the Registrar of Titles in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby consents to the foregoing Parking Lot Lease Agreement and agrees that its interest in the Property is subordinate and junior in all respects to the lease granted to the City. By: Karen L. Desens STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ______________, 2012 by Karen L. Desens, a single person. Notary Public 12 Owner of Parcel # 9 1619 University Avenue West By: Elisa Nafstad STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by Elisa Nafstad, a single person. Notary Public 13 Consent to Parking Lot Lease Agreement for Parcel #9 1619 University Avenue West By Mortgage Holder in the Property The undersigned, , a of Inter Saving Bank, fsb, doing business as InterBank, fsb, being the holder of a certain mortgage dated August 15, 2005, and filed of record December 15, 2005 in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota, as Document No. 1943900, hereby consents to the foregoing Parking Lot Lease Agreement and agrees that its interest in the Property is subordinate and junior in all respects to the lease granted to the City. INTER SAVING BANK By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ______________, 2012 by _________________________________, the _______________________ of InterBank, fsb, a ____________________ under the laws of Minnesota on behalf of InterBank, fsb. Notary Public 14 Owner of Parcel 10 1613 University Avenue West: BKN PROPERTIES, LLC By: Bill K. Nicklow Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by Bill K. Nicklow, the manager of BKN Properties, LLC, the owner of 1613 University Avenue West, on behalf of BKN Properties, LLC. Notary Public 15 THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA By: Christopher B. Coleman, its Mayor By: Todd P. Hurley, its Director, Office of Financial Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Assistant City Attorney STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2012, by Christopher B. Coleman and Todd P. Hurley, respectively the Mayor and Director of Office of Financial Services, of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, a public body, for and on behalf of said public body. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City Attorney Office Room 400, City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 16 EXHIBIT A: Legal Descriptions of Property Shown in Sunde Land Surveying Survey September 21, 2011 Note: Parcel designations are for reference only and do not constitute part of the legal descriptions. Parcel #1: (Abstract) The south 37 feet of Lots 6 and 7, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel #2: (Abstract) The south 37 feet of Lot 8, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel #3: (Torrens certificate #175121) The south 37 feet of Lot 9, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel #4: (Torrens certificate #175157) The south 37 feet of Lot 10, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel #5: (Torrens certificate #348492) The south 6.27 feet of Lot 11, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel #6: (Torrens certificate #584647) The south 6.27 feet of Lot 12, Block 4 of BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Together with the south 22.37 feet of Lot 13, said Block 4. Also together with that part of Lot 14, sold Block 4, described as beginning at the southeast corner of sold Lot 14; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 14, a distance of 8.79 feet; thence North 00 degrees 40 minutes 08 seconds West a distance of 20.29 feet; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 5.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 2.13 feet; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 3.39 feet to the east line of said Lot 14; thence south along said east line of Lot 14 to the point of beginning. Parcel #7: (Abstract) The east 6.86 feet of the north 64.86 feet of Lot 16, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 17 Together with that part of Lot 17, said Block 4, lying north of a line described as commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 17; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East, along the West line of said Lot 17, a distance of 64.86 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 31.28 feet; thence on a bearing of North a distance of 14.77 feet; thence on a bearing of East a distance of 9.20 feet; thence on a bearing of South a distance of 14.73 feet; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 10.41 feet to the east line of said Lot 17 and said line there terminating. Parcel #8: (Torrens certificate #561496) That part of Lot 18, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying north and west of a line described as commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 18; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 64.86 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 24.51 feet; thenceon a bearing of North a distance of 10.04 feet; thence on a bearing of East a distance of 15.25 feet; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 07 seconds West a distance of 1.69 feet; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 0.18 feet to the east line of said Lot 18 and said line there terminating. Parcel #9: (Torrens certificate #556201) That part of Lots 19 and 20, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 19; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 19, a distance of 53.19 feet; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 33.75 feet; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 27.43 feet; thence North 89 degrees 38 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 12.75 feet; thence South 45 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 6.12 feet; thence South 00 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 29.98 feet to the south line of said Lot 20; thence east along the south line of said Lot 20 a distance of 9.17 feet to the east line of the west half of said Lot 20; thence north along said east line of the west half of Lot 20 to the north line of said Lot 20; thence west along said north line of Lot 20 and the north line of said lot 19 to the point of beginning. Parcel #10: (Torrens certificate #570336) That part of Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, BRIGHTWOOD PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 21; thence west along the north line of said Lots 21 and 20 to the east line of the west half of said Lot 20; thence south along said east line of the west half of Lot 20 to the south line of said Lot 20; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 36 minutes 14 seconds East, along said south line of Lot 20 a distance of 13.22 feet; thence north 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 56.10 feet; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 47.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 44.99 feet; thence North 44 degrees 30 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 0.39 feet to the east line of said Lot 21; thence north to the point of beginning 18 EXHIBIT B Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #1 American Bank Employee Parking Lot, 0 Sherburne Avenue, St. Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases to the City that portion of the property described as Parcels #1, #2, #3, and #4 below for an amount equal to the rent the Owner is required to pay the operator of the Spruce Tree Center parking ramp for 22 contract parking spaces. As of the date of this Lease Agreement, that amount is $1,320.00 per month calculated as follows: $60.00 a month per space times 22 spaces equals $1,320.00 per month. This amount may increase or decrease over the term of this Lease Agreement depending upon the actual charges the Owner pays for such 22 spaces. The Owner agrees to use its best efforts to keep its contract parking rent to the operator of the Spruce Tree parking ramp as low as possible. 19 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #2 American Bank Employee Parking Lot, 0 Sherburne Avenue, St. Paul, MN Rent: See Parcel #1 above. 20 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #3 American Bank Employee Parking Lot, 0 Sherburne Avenue, St. Paul, MN Rent: See Parcel #1 above. 21 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #4 American Bank Employee Parking Lot, 1622 Sherburne Avenue, St. Paul, MN Rent: See Parcel #1 above. 22 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #5 James S. and Nancy Z. Hartung, Residential Duplex, 1622 Sherburne Ave., St.Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases that portion of the property described as Parcel #5 below (which comprises ¾ of a parking space in area) for the sum of $45.00 per month as of the date of this Lease Agreement. This is calculated as follows: three-quarters (¾) times $60.00 per month (the amount charged American Bank for the use of parking spaces in the Spruce Tree parking ramp as described in Parcel #1 above) equals $45.00 per month. This amount may increase or decrease over the term of this Lease Agreement depending upon the actual charges American Bank pays for its parking spaces in the Spruce Tree parking ramp. 23 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #6 1630 Sherburne, LLC, Apartment Building, 1630-1632 Sherburne Ave., St.Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases that portion of the property described as Parcel #6 below (which comprises 4 parking spaces in area) for the sum of $240.00 per month as of the date of this Lease Agreement. This is calculated as follows: 4 parking spaces times $60.00 per month per space (the amount charged American Bank for the use of parking spaces in the Spruce Tree parking ramp as described in Parcel #1 above) equals $240.00 per month. This amount may increase or decrease over the term of this Lease Agreement depending upon the actual charges American Bank pays for its parking spaces in the Spruce Tree parking ramp. 24 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Paracel #7 Karen L. Desens, fee owner, and Valid Ventures, LLC, contract owner, 1625-1631 University Avenue W., Saint Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases that portion of the property described below not for any rent but in exchange for the capital improvements the Lessee will make to this Property. 25 Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #8 Karen L. Desens, fee owner, and Valid Ventures, LLC, contract owner, 1625-1631 University Avenue W., Saint Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases that portion of the property described below not for any rent but in exchange for the capital improvements the Lessee will make to this Property. 26 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #9 Elisa Nafstad, 1619 University Avenue West, Saint Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases that portion of the property described below not for any rent but in exchange for the capital improvements the Lessee will make to this Property. 27 Rent, Survey of Lease Area of Parcel #10 BKN Properties, LLC, 1613 University Ave. West, St.Paul, MN Rent: The Owner leases that portion of the property described below not for any rent but in exchange for the capital improvements the Lessee will make to this Property. 28 Survey of Lease Area of All Parcels 29 Exhibit C Drawings and Specifications City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-686 Name:Honoring Financial Literacy Month 2012 Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Honoring Financial Literacy Month 2012 Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Honoring Financial Literacy Month 2012 Body WHEREAS, many Saint Paul households lack a relationship with a mainstream financial institution and are therefore unbanked; and, WHEREAS, lacking a bank account, the unbanked must use alternative financial service establishments and their expensive fringe financial products; and, WHEREAS, the average full-time worker without a bank account can spend $40k over the course of their lifetime to cash paychecks; and, WHEREAS, an unbanked individual is unable to establish credit and will therefore never qualify for traditional loans, thus making them easy prey for unscrupulous lending practitioners; and, WHEREAS, without a bank account, the many of the unbanked only carry cash, increasing their likelihood to be targeted victims of theft; and, WHEREAS, financial security strengthens individuals, families and communities -- and by connecting the unbanked with low-cost checking and savings accounts they have a safe place to store their money, grow assets, securely access money in the event of an emergency; and, WHEREAS, it is important to remove barriers that prevent and impede access to mainstream financial institutions and quality financial education; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Saint Paul City Council declares the month of April, 2012 to be Financial Literacy Month, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council encourages financial partners in the Twin Cities to work together for a regional solution to financial literacy for the benefit of unbanked residents in Saint Paul and the Twin Cities. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-558 Name:2011 - 2012 Fire Contract Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Approving the Collective Bargaining Agreement (January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2012) between the City of Saint Paul and The International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 21. (To be laid over one week for adoption) Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:2011 - 2012 Firefighters Contract.pdf 2011 - 2012 Fire Contract Summary.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Approving the Collective Bargaining Agreement (January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2012) between the City of Saint Paul and The International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 21. (To be laid over one week for adoption) Body RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves and ratifies the attached Collective Bargaining Agreement (January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2012) between the City of Saint Paul and The International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 21. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-660 Name:Wrecker Services request for impound lot outside the city limits of the City of Saint Paul. Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Approving the request by Wrecker Services, Inc. located at 200 East Lyndale Avenue North in Minneapolis for an impound lot located outside the limits of the City of Saint Paul. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Approving the request by Wrecker Services, Inc. located at 200 East Lyndale Avenue North in Minneapolis for an impound lot located outside the limits of the City of Saint Paul. Body WHEREAS, Wrecker Services, Inc., located at 200 East Lyndale Avenue North, in the city of Minneapolis, a wrecker and tow truck service licensed pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code section 361, has requested approval of an impound lot located outside the limits of the City of Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legislative Code section 361.12 prohibits a licensee from towing a motor vehicle from private property under order of one not the owner or operator of the vehicle to a storage lot which is outside the limits of the City of Saint Paul unless the location of the lot has been specifically approved by the city council; and WHEREAS, the requested storage lot is located at 200 East Lyndale Avenue North, in the City of Minneapolis, which is outside the limits of the City of St. Paul; and WHEREAS, the Department of Safety and Inspections has no objection to the location of the requested storage lot; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the location of the requested storage lot will not bear adversely on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, that the request of Wrecker Services, located at 200 East Lyndale Aveune North, in Minneapolis to tow motor vehicles to the storage lot located at 200 East Lyndale Avenue North, in the City of Minneapolis is granted. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-666 Name:Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 00906 Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing the City to enter into Cooperative Construction Agreement 00906 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Agreement00906.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing the City to enter into Cooperative Construction Agreement 00906 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Body IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 00906 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the costs of the City performed work on a State let construction project upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 94 at the following intersections: Cretin Avenue/Vandalia Street, Hamline Avenue, Lexington Parkway, and Dale Street within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 8825-369. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the Director of Public Works are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1RES 12-667 Name:Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 00769 Status:Type:Resolution Agenda Ready In control:City Council Final action: Title:Authorizing the City to enter into Cooperative Construction Agreement 00769 Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Agreement00769.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Authorizing the City to enter into Cooperative Construction Agreement 00769 Minnesota Department of Transportation. Body IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 00769 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the parking lanes, ADA improvements and revised signal systems construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 51 from West 7th Street to Dayton Avenue within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 6215-91 (T.H. 51=125) IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the Director of Public Works are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1ABZA 12-3 Name:Jirik Appeal of BZA approval at 1170 Selby Avenue Status:Type:Appeal-BZA For Discussion In control:City Council Final action: Title:Public hearing to consider the appeal of Walter Jirik to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue. (Public hearing held February 15) Sponsors:Melvin Carter III Indexes: Code sections:Sec. 63.304. - Parking location, nonresidential., Sec. 63.310. - Entrances and exits., Sec. 63.312. - Setback. Attachments:Application for Appeal BZA Resolution and meeting minutes Deadline extension letter BZA Neighborhood Notification Neighborhood correspondence 1of 3 Neighborhood correspondence 2 of 3 Neighborhood correspondence 3 of 3 BZA staff report BZA 2006 Resolution BZA variance application Site photos 1of 3 Site photos 2 of 3 Site photos 3 of 3 Union Park Letter Save Our Selby Packet.pdf Correspondence in opposition to appeal Correspondence in support of appeal Correspondence in support of appeal 03-13-12.pdf Hermanson Spreadsheet.pdf Hermanson Spreadsheet1.pdf Correspondence in support of appeal 3-14-12.pdf 3-17-12 Save Our Selby Open Letter.pdf Smith email 4-9-12.pdf SPACC Letter 4-10-12.pdf Diekrager email 04-10-12.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Laid OverCity Council3/14/2012 1 Pass Laid OverCity Council2/15/2012 1 Pass Title Public hearing to consider the appeal of Walter Jirik to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #: ABZA 12-3, Version: 1 two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue. (Public hearing held February 15) Body The applicant, JJ Haywood, owner of Pizza Luce applied for two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue. A public hearing was held on December 27, 2011. Staff recommended approval of the variances subject to the condition that bumper guards be installed on the east side of the parking lot to keep parked cars from hitting the commercial building to the east. The applicant's request was subsequently approved by the BZA as recommended by staff with the additional condition that the applicant obtains site plan review approval prior to obtaining a building permit for any construction or grading on the site. Required Background Information The appellant (Walter Jirik) has provided a three page document detailing his grounds for appeal. That document is attached to this file. Does this issue fall within the 60 day rule? No If yes, when does the 60 days expire? Has an extension been granted? Yes If so, to what date? April 3, 2012 Key Staff Contact Yaya Diatta 651-266-9080 Yaya.diatta@ci.stpaul.mn.us <mailto:Yaya.diatta@ci.stpaul.mn.us> City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ e February 2, 2012 Saint Paul City Council 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Min nesota 55102 Dear Council President Lantry and City Councilmembers, At a meetin g of the Union Park District Council Board of Directors on February 1, 2012 , the Union Park District Council passed the following motion regarding the Application for Appeal to appeal a decision made by the Board of Zonin g Appeals on December 27, 2011, regarding property located at 1170 Selby A venue: The Union Park District Council (UPDC) supports the BZA decision of December 27, 2011, to grant the variances to allow Pizza Lucé to build a parking lot on their property at 1170 Selby A ve nue, and opposes the appeal by a group of neighbors to reverse that decision. UPDC recommends that Pizza Lucé and neighbors conti nue efforts to address pedestrian safety issues by reviewing the suggestions of fered at community meetin gs on January 10 and 31, 2012, and adopting a package of measures to make the parking lot safer. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Carla Olson President UNION PARK DISTRICT COUNCIL 1570 Concordia Avenue, Suite LL100, Saint Paul, MN 55104 p 651 645 6887 | f 651 917 9991 | e info@unionparkdc.org | w unionparkdc.org I Lr'ritrrit,,11. { l.tnrlirr,, ( ., rrn.,i,: i. ( L il'r, rl What? When? Where? whv? A Restaurant ln Lex-Ham? Please Join Us for a ,,pocket Meeting,' A chance for neighbors riving near setby Ave. to get together and leam more about Pizza Luc6, a local restaurant ptinning to open a new location at 1 183 Selby Avenue. Tuesday, March 21, 2006,7:00-g:30 pM 1236 Dayton-Mary Beth Redmond's hous e-LHCC Board Member To discuss Pizza Luc6's plans and address any concerns from the su rrou nd i ng ne igh bors. from the March 2006 rssue of "The Ea Pizza Luc6 in Lex-Ham? Maybe! l:f..*llf: ?f p:o,"_\::6jT:nd19 th" January Lex_Ham Board meetins to presentplans for a restaurant at 1183 Selby. The board *"r irpr"ssed by 1.t"ir-"#oi i; i;f;';,and to get our input and support early in their planning process. Pizza Luc6 was established in 1993 in the Warehouse District of Minneapolis. Otherlocations include Uptown, Seward/University and Duluth. They are tocaily owned andoperated. Pizza Luc6 takes great prile in the quality of their food and beiieves that goodfood comes from fresh ingredients, original recipes ind happy cooks. They offervegetarian and vegan alternatives, along with more traditionai fare. They arecommitted tothe quality of their work environment. They offer fult health benefits and dental benefitsalong with paid vacation to all staff working an averag e of 32 hours or more per week. you can read more about them at www.pizzaluce.com. At 1 183 Selby, they plan to develop a 2500 to 3000 square foot restaurant. Depending on the size of the restaurant and the configuration of the existing parking lot, they will nei a variance. Their most similar restaurant is 2200 E. Franklin Ave in Minneapolii. parking at this location has not been an issue. The restaurant traditionally gets aboul4Oo/o of its slbs from delivery. The restaurant is also seeking a liquor license. Liquor is an amenity to Pizza Luc6's dine-in menu and as such most of it is consumed as part of a meal. At the Seward location, liquor accounts for only 10o/o of the restaurant's sales. ptzza Luc6 is a restaurant that serves liquor, not a bar with a food menu. The board has heard many people express their desire for a small restaurant in our neighborhood. Pizza Luc6 seems like an ideal candidate. Please come to the pocket meeting to contribute your thoughts and input on this opportunity or e-mail or call the Lex- Ham office at lexham@lexham.orq or 651-625-3207. , lr-.-_ home and your neighborh<xtd. Pizza Luce in Lex-Ham? - Express your Support! As you may have heard by now, Pizza Luce - a local restaurant with 3 locations in Minneapolis and 1 in Duluth - has purchased 1183 Selbv with the goal of opening their first Saint Paul location. They are proposing to develop a 3,000 sq. ft restaurani that will seat 65-75 people (about 25 tables) and will include a small outdoor patio. Pizza Luce has developed a reputation for serving good food, maintaining well managed businesses and supporting the communities in which their stores are located. The board has sought input from the community via the neighborhood e-list, the Eavesdropper, and a "pocket meeting" held in March on Dayton Avenue. The majority of the feedback we've received has been very positive. Concerns regarding potentiai noise from the patio and parking impacts on surrounding blocks were shared wilh pizza Luce who expressed a willingness to work closely with the council and neighbors to create solutions tirat minimize concerns. ln order to develop a restaurant at 1183 Selby, Pizza Luce is seekinq a parkino variance of 11 spaces because the small parking lot adjaCent to the building does not have enough spaces to meets the city's zoning code for a 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant. Their request for a zoning variance will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 22, 2006. Community input plays a significant role in variance requests and individual calls and emails from surroundinq households are particularty important. lf you support having aPizza Luce in Lex-Ham, ptease contact John Hardwick with the City of Saint Paul Department of Licensing lnspection and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to express your support. John can be reached at 651-266-9082 or ioh n. hardwick@ci.stpaul. mn. us. (please see the reverse for a sample email) Questions? Ptease contact the Lex-Ham Community Council at 65'l-645-3207 or lexham@lexham.orq tr.-r ll,x,.r." I ll .ftiil,rt" IlMt Tltc bndge bcturcn your Dear Mr. Hardwick: As a resident of the Lexington Hamline neighborhood, I am very pleased that a responsible business like Pizza Luce is planning to open a restaurant in the neighborhood. This restaurant will be a positive economic and social development for the neighborhood because it will improve the building and site, serve the neighborhood as a quality restaurant and provide a local place for neighbors to meet and interact. I urge you to grant the parking variance requested by Pizza Luce. Based on their past track record, their willingness to meet with local residents and the community council to share their plans and solicit feedback, I am confidenl thal Pizza Luce will work with our neighborhood, serve it well and address any issues in a positive proactive way. Sincerely, Jane Doe 11XX Dayton Avenue Questions? Please contact the Lex-Ham Community Council at 651-645-3207 or lexham@lexham.oro MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAI-S, CTTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, MAY 22,2006 PR'ESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of the B6ard of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the office of License, [nspections, and Environmentai protection. AES_ENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. : A variance of the off_street parkingrequirements in order to establish a new restaurant. when a new use requires more parking. than theprevious u-se, parking must be provided for the difference between the two. The resturant requires 31spaces and the previous- use required 12 spaces for a difference of 19 spaces. rne rpfiicrnt is iroposingto provide 8 spaces in the adjacent lot for a variance of 11 spaces. Mr' Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staffreport with a recommendation forapproval, subject to the condition that the two lots are combined as a single parcel under one prope4yidentification number. Twelve letters were received supporting the variance request. one letter was received from District l3L supporting the variance request. 'The applicantlvllKE FINKELSTEIN, represe nting PVZALUCE: 119 4rh Street North Suite 50g,was present' Mr. Finkelstein stated that there are actually three Pizza Llce in Minneapolis and one inDuluth' Also about the patio out in front. The patio in front was designed in a way to'offer the parkingfrom the street as opposgd to finding the patio in the back. so we took extra caution to make and addedwhatever buffer we could. Amy Caron, 1217 Selby Avenue, stated that she lives.on the same block and same side of.the street asP'uzaLuce. Wheu we heard thatP'azaluce was coming to ou. Lighborhood we were thrilled. Theresponse from the neighborhood has been excellent. A freat business like pizza Luce who will do agreat job. Do'a good job with their employees. The architecture in their other buildings is fantastic. She does not think thaithey could have goffen a better match for the neighborhood. G;id;;---' something rhat was.boarded up to something ttrat is vital is amazing. sni reets that the values of thePizzaLuce group are right in line with the neighborhood. she does not think that the parking will be aproblem. She did door knocking on Friday una th. responses have been from cautiouily optimistic toecstatic. Nothiug that she had commented to a neighboi that she was attending this hearing and theneighbor requested ttrat Ms. Carorl "not let them stop this, we reauy ne6d thisl" Barb Gunther, !217 Ashland Avenue, noted that she is on the Board the Lexington Hamline CommunityCouncil. She stated that she just wanted to reiterate their interest in seeing this=approved. They trave traO Tlly meeting on this issue starting in January, we also did door knocking as tate as last weekend. Wethink ttrat this ih line with our strategic plan, in terms of getting a community oriented business andrevitalizing selby Avenue- we are very excited to have iniotuce come and we think that any issues AA-ADA-EEO Employcr ( File #06-079138 Minutes May 22,2006 Page Two that woulcl arise as a result of parking could be handled by Pizza Luce as they have been very willing to attend meetings and have been very williig to negotiate with us. Dave Boquist, ll77 Selby Avenue, stated that he is a caretaker for a building about two buildings down from wlrere PizzaLuce will be. Noting that he is representing the owner of the apartment he is a caretaker for. Mr. Boquist stated they have a question about how many parking spaces would be taken up on ttre street. Noting that they havO 16 units and anywhere from 16-22 cars on the street at any one time on 0re street along Selby Avenue. He questioned whether this were the correct format to discuss this. Ms. Maddox stated this is it. Talking about parking is what we are here for. Mr. Boquist questioned whether he should address his comments to Mr. Finkelstein? Ms. Maddox replied that Mr. Boquist should address the Board and Mr. Finkelstein would ,nswer the questions at the end. Mr. Boquist questioned how many more parking spaces along Selby Avenue are going to be required for ttre 35 seat restaurant with a patio? Ms. Maddox stated he will address that at the end of the testimony. There was no opposition present at the hearing. Ms. Maddox requested that Mr. Finkelstein readdress the Board and comment on Mr. Beguests' concerns. Mr. Finkelstein stated that parking is very tight in the neighborhood and is a concern. During their busiest time in the evening, a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday they would expect 50-60 customers. Noting that they have seating for 65 and if they are waiting for seating there may be a few more customers than that.. Keep in mind thatPizza Luce thrives on being a neighborhood establishment. Mary of the patrons are from ttre.deighborhood, they are walking, biking. He thinks &at they did a study a few years ago to find out what percentage of their customers come from the neighborhood. From his experience it is 25- 35% of the customers are from the neighborhood. How many vehicles will be on Selby Avenue during the busy time, he cannot estimate. He can only tell how many customers they might serve. They have exhausted all possibilities with'additional off-sEeet parking. Whatever goes into the building, whettrer it is retail or a restaurant, parking could be a potential issue. The request for the eleven off-street parking stalls given the amount of on street parking on Selby Avenue, the amount of parking on the site, as well as additional parking in and around the neighborhood, in our experience, in our Sward and Uptown locations are both very similar to this location. We expect that the parking will not be an issue, like it is not an issue for our Uptown and Sward locations, we af,e very neighborhood sensitive, always have been. lf you read through the packet the letters tell you from the neighborhood how sensitive we are to the parking issue. To the extent that there are concen$, we are there to work them out, that is what our track record is all about. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed ttre public portion of the meeting. Mr. Courtney questioned Mr. Hardwick about the number of off-street parking spaces required. It seems to him ttrat if twelve spaces were required before, now thirty-one spaces are required, they must need nineteen more parking sp.aces not nineteen total? Not nineteen more, that doesn't rnake any sense. Mr. Hardwick responded that they will be providing eight parking spaies in the parking lot. Eight from AA-ADA-EEO Employer File #06{79318 Minutes May 22,2006. Page Three nineteen is eleven, that is how he came up with ttrat number. Mr. Courtney further questioned, ,.but they were required to have a certain amount before. And now they are to have thirty-qr. so they should be required to have nineteen more than they had before, it seems to him. Mr. Hardwick stated that is not how he looked at it. Mr. Finkelstein requested to qpeak. Ms. Maddox commented that she could re- open the hearing if Mr. Finkelstein had some clarification. Mr. Finkelstein replied possibly. Only to the extent that there is a credit of twelve. There is a grandfattrered credit of twelve from the previous use. So you sart with the twelve and add eight and take it from there. Mr. Courtney stated well it seems to him that it should be nineteen. Mr. Galles moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings I tfuough 6, subject to 0re condition ttrat the two lots are combined as a single parcel under one property identification number. #s.'Morton seconded the motion, which passed oo , ,ott call vote of 7-0. AA-ADA-BEO Employer #iionton uafrlin Communirv Council''1'h e [.ex in g to n - I-l a rn Iin e (l o nt ttr tt n iry Co tr n c iI llcn bcr ffiffi8 (omm unity 5olutlonc fund A.tt..t.a ro. t.l t t tt n. THE EAVESDROPPER 'Ihe bridse Vol. XXXIII between ytrur St. Paul home and your nt'ighborhood March,2006 No. III Conrnrunitv Cale ndar I'ot 'l irnc at I)ulrlring \1,,rr..\ '*.'i:il (): i{} I l. i{i.,,,, ['rr rrd ioliptr [ ),.':trll irrt' 'J'i,lr1r',.1.1y, \{,,1 ;1 I'rinit I.irrtcr ltotlir, k ',.!i,lrr, ',1.rr, \1 rr. .l L I l: i0_ l: i{}| rrr, [: xcc rr t ive Co rrr rn it tce Mccting N4on<l.rv, \l,rr JiJ,7p rrt. Board Meetinp; I\lorrr1iry, l\lar. 2/, 7p.rrr. Broadband Technology Fonrrn Martin Lruhcr King Recrcatiott ( lrntcr, 271 lr{ackubin 5t. Motttlly, M.tr. 6, / ') p.n. Environmental Roundtable Cleur V'atcr Sotrth Sairrr Arrrlt.,rty Rt:r'rc:ttiott ( le rrte r, 8()0 (-'rorrtwrll Aventre 'lircsd.rv, Ilar. 14,7-9 p.nr. Quality and OJrantity of Green Soace ll.rrrline's [;w & (lr,rrlrr;rtc Srlrools []rril<ling, Roorrr 106. l49l ll*vitt Avcnrre Wedrrcsd.n, ir4,rr. I 5, 7,9 p.nr. hrle lloEs! Cuilon Colout Pizza Lrrcd in Lex-Hant? Maybe! Tlre owrrcr, CE(), devclope r, and a storc nrrnager {iour Pizza Luce .rtterrdet{ tlte .f arrrrary lrx..H,rrn boarrl rrreetingi to [)rcsent the ir pllns lor a restlur:rrrt ,rt I 18.) Selb,v. Pizza llrce has heen scarching lor thc idc.rl krc:ttiott to ()[)cn thcir first Sairrt P.rul lor,,r- ri.rr ,rnd tlrcir resr',trth led tlrrrrt to I cr- l{lrn! Tlrc h,r.rrrj w.ts itrtprerscd n'itlr tlrcir initiurivr ilr ,rppro,rhirrg thc cottrtrtrllrtv t() g,rthcr irrprrr,rnd,;rrplrort rlrrrirrg Ilre e,rrly slagei ot rhcir pl:rrrrrirrg [)r()(css. Sr,, wlro is Pizz.r l.tr.ti'l hcy' rvcre cst.rb- lishctl ilr 199,1 irr tltc V'.rtclt,rtrsc [)istrict,rf' Minne.rlrolis. (-)thcr lotationr inclrrtle [..lptown, Scw;r rdl l. I n ir'crri ty .r ntl [)rrl rrt lr. Piz.zl Irrci ir locally c,wtrc.{ Ity lirlks wlr<r live irr rlre rornrnrrnities.rntl ,rrc lctivcl,r' irrvolvcd irt rrrrrtrittg tltc btrsirress. Pizz.t [.uci t.rkcs grr.rt pride in rlrc qrralitv o[' thcir frxrd arrd believes tlrat g,xxl [o,>d corrres fionr fr'cslr ingredients, original rccipes & lrapl.ry cooks. 1'hey offer vege- t;rriln and vcgan altentatives, along wirh rnorc rr;rditi()n;rl [are . 'fhcy are cqu.rJly contntitted tt-r the cluirlitv of tlreir wrrrk crrvironnrcnt. The1, oflcr lull healrh .rnd ,lcnr,rl lrcnclin ,rlortg witlr p;rid vrtcrttiott trr .rll it,rfl'rvorkitrg an ivcr.rge oi.J2 lrcrrrrr or rrorc l)cr wrck. V,tt ratt reittl ttttlre ,ttrotll t hctrt,tt www.pizz.rlrtt e. cont. l)ilza [.rrre h,rs signed a purcltase agrcc. nlcnr orl rhc propertv .rr I l8J Sclhy arrd ir Itxrking to drvel,rp a 2500-.1000 sq ft re\tiurr.ln(. Dcpentling on the .izc of tJrc Ie:tt.llrrrlnr .rrrd the corrligtrrati,rtt o[' tlrc eristirrg p.rrkirrg Lrt, thcy will rrced a vari- ,tnce of 7-lI [r:rrkinB spaccs. -flteir trtorr sirrrilirr loc.rti,rn to tlrc propo.ed Selbv lrration is Scwerd' 2100 E [;r.rnkliu Avc i, Nlirrreap.lis. F.xPeric,ce,r"r,:f],:,:i,,,,, lh,' rr t rit',r[ pia-r lutl $fho are we? Thc Lx-Hanr n<ighborh*rd in Sr. Peul is h,rundcd hl, Univcrsitl' Avenur'. Llxirrgron Parkway, Summit and Hamlinc Avcnu"r. Sincc thc Lrxingtrrrr-Hamlirrt (l('nrmunirl, Cotrrrcil was csrahlishcd in l')(r'), it has ht.r.rr [ht.cr)nx'rsrorrt Iiu ,rrgrnir.irrg and s.ning thc J,{XX) r(tid( nts Lvirrg irr thrs m'ighhor. hr,,,d. Thc (i,runcil's g,,al is t,, str(ngth(il tht rrtighhorhot,d tlrtl t,, crrntinur. to huild a srtr r,[ [litlt arrrl <rrttliJ< lrct ln rlt( (otnnrunir) thr,'u$h a u'idc vlittl ,r[ arlnitrr.. rr<l trvict's rargrrrg fronr a(n,lx.rr. trv. h.,rn. nrlirrlttr.rttcc. crintt- pr.,. !('nt!r)n, ( n( rgl'(iltls,ndti0n alrd r( (.t(Jti, tllJl [)l r ]EIIll]s. Editorial Guidelines 'I'h.' E;vcs1r.,pp'r is dt.livrrr.d r))("lthl)' lo ('v(-r)' h()rn(. Urd hrrsilr.sr itr th< trcighborhood. Noticcs lrrd artrcl(a sh(,uld he suhnlittt.d irr rlr.c. tr,rrli. V{rrcl tornrat trr lt'xhamqi'l<'x- h"ttt.,,rg. I'lt asc krr p suhnrissi,lr. t,, a lt ngth o[ 150 wrrrrls or [i.wer. F,r otlrcr guidanct, contJct thc llx. l-lanr,rfllce. Eavrvlr,,ppr rt's.rv<'s thr righr i(r r(fus ant suhnrrssi,,rr. Submission Deadlines Articls {r'r rht' April is*ur'nru.st k srrhm it tt'tl lr1' V/cdrrcvla1., M arch tIl, I'lt'as'kc<'P t'yl1sls sh(,r(. so w(' r':tt irrelttdl all ,rf thcnrl Eavesdropper Volunteer Staff M( lissa (r('rnlain Prrrir:ir Str.luh (lhrrs Vtnd li.rthcr Mullcr, Craphic f)csrgrr ( (,1) ti.t ar nr ullt'risnr6ll'lhtx,.conr THE EAVESDROPPER O March 2006 (ixriuu,rl lr,rn p I that plrking at thar locarion is nor a major issue because aborrt 40tZr ol'tlre sales corne fronr delivery. They are also seekirrg sup- porr (br a liquor licensc. Liquor is an anlclliry to Pizza l.ucils dine-in nleltu and as such nlost ofit is consrrnred as part of a meal. Ar the Seward lrrcation, liquor ilc(ounts filr on11, | 0(X, o[ rlrcir sales. Pizza [-rrci s(resses tlrar rhey operrte rf.staurallts tlrat srrvc liqtror, rrot bars witlr a firod rrrcnu. ()vcr tlrr yc.trt, .ur,l irr rlrr str.rrclii. plarrnirrg fi"cdbatli, rhc ho;rrd har hcarrl ntatty pt-oPl3 cxPrcss rlreir desire tirr a ynall rcsraurrln( in 0rtr rreighborlt(xxl. I)izz,t I uci sccrrrs like an idcal candidalc. l{ youd like to (orrrributc )'()ut tli()ugl)ts and itr[]ur on tlris opporrtrrritl,, plr:rsr t:rn:lil rhr l-ex,l lanr of'l'ice .r lcxlranrp.ilexlril,n.()rg or crrll .f cssit.r ar 65 I -64 5 -.it07. nrforrable condirion. The all-voluntce r rot(ranl helps people who havc lirnited rrsources and have rrouble nrainraining the cxte riors of their honies. All work is formed without cosr ro tlre honrcowncl T'he 200(r Hearts & Ilanrrners Prcgranr f)iry is sclredulcd for Saturtlar., Seprcnrber 16. Honreowne r \rplicati<)ns are due M'a1'26. Plea.re contact rlre l-ex-llaur oflicc lbr l-lotucowrrer applic at ions. Ilelp Keep Local Elders Connected It ttt.ty s,rrrnd like an acl lcrr a certairr crrr {)nlp;uly, hrrt whcrr peoplc a.\k the lot.rl Block Nurrc pr()tranr how rhey can llelp niors in rlrrir <onrniurrity, our l)rsr rcsP()llsc i.r alw;rt's " [)r ivcrs V/antcd". !7hcn lrrced with declirrirrg cy'cr,ighr or a reducrion irr tlrc srrengtlr or rnobilitv rrced- cd to halrdlc a c?r, n)ltnv seniors will choosc to give rrp driving. k's a wisr but difrictrlt dccision, nrade nrore difllculr by tlre fan tlrar a l.rck ol'trarrrporratiorr c.rrr bring isolarion and a declinc irr rrurririon and healtlr carc T'hrouglr both frrrnral arrd infornral vol- rrntrering, rreigltbors who are alrlc to drivc ufcly cur kcep tlreir local elde rs corrnccted to thc conlnrurriry and frce to rnakc choic- e.r by the sirnplc acr o[sharing a ride. \Vc rnighr be inclirred Io "rnind our owr) busi- ness" but the act of ofhring friendship in tlrc fbnn of-a ridc can transfbrnr a neigh lrorhood. For those who haven't forrnd a local senior to lrelp, the Block Nursc Progrlrn rlratches driverr with scniors (hat ueed occasicural trlnsPortation. No nrat- rer how you do it, reaching our to an eldcl is a simple acr rhar streng(hens yorl conl- nrunity end enricllrs the lives ofevcryonc involved. For infbrnration orr how you (an lrell) a $rnior neal yoll, cc)ntact tlre Mcrrianr Park Block Nurse Pr<granr (we serve all of'dis trict 1.3) il U6-2301. Rehab Opportun Low-Income Homeowners Rebuilding Together Twin Cities Rebuildirrg -ltrgcrher lwin Cirics is a noll-profi r volrr n t ccr ortlan izar iolt r har I inks Itonteowrte rs in treed with peoplc willirrg tcr lend a lrarrd. Tlrrotrglr panncrships witlr social rervice agelrcies arrd neightxlrlroods, Rebuildirrg'lbgcther rclratrilitate.i and repairr honres at no clrarge to qualifvirrg honteowtrers. Rebrrilding Tirgetlrcr works with low-inconle honrcownrrr, parriculrrly rlrr clde rly, disablccl, arrd flnrilies with clril- dren. J'he 200(, project days for Rebuildirrg Togethe r arr May 18, 20 and Septernbcr 2-1. The applicatiorr deadline for tlre lvlav projccr da1's ha. passed trut the de.rdline fbr thc Septe nrbcr proiect is July l5th. Hearts & Hammers Twin Cities 1'hc non-prollt nrission of Heirns & Hirnrnle rs - Tlvin Cities, lnc. is to help rrtaintain Twin Cities' urban hortsinl1 $ock hy restorirrg older hornes to a safe ar)d '2 Confidential Page I 91712006 Pizza Luce V Selby/Lexington St. Paul Presented by: J.J. Haywood-Palmer, CEO P izza Luce Managemen! tnc 612.334-9576, ext. 4 612333,1328 ih 61S@vahoo.com www.pizzaluceJom I I ! ) ILF I I {ri I f- ! ,+ lB t ii r-i i-:. i I I : Confidential Page2 91712006 Executive Summary pizzaLace,Minnesota's premier gourmet pizza restaurant and delivery service is expanding its service area by opening an exciting new store in the Selby/Lexington Parkway area of St. Paul. Building on thirteen years of a*ard winning gourmet pizz.a_andexceptional customer loyalty piuaLie,s new Selby/Lexington store will become a profitable business within 12 months. Objectives l I &: t tI !- I-l- a a To expand PizzaLuce's market presence by opening a new store in the Selby/Lexington area of St Paul. To build a loyal customer base to support the new store' To increase sales to reach $140,000 monthly sales by mid of 2007, and $150,000 monthly sales by the end of 2008. Mission piz,zaLuc€takes great pride in the extraordinary quality of our food. We believe that good food comes from freshhgredients, original recipes & happy cooks. complimenting our carnivorous menu is an award winning collection of the vegetarian and vegan alternatives our market demands. pizz,aLw1is equally committed to the qualrty of our work environment. The longevity of service by many of our staff members testifies to the investment we make in our personnel. The retum onthis investment results is evident in the excellence of our food and our customer service. Keys to Success High qualily,freshfood. We make our whole-wheat dough fresh daily, and our cooks nana+oss each crust with care. Our pizzas are made to order with the freshest quality ingredients available. Our fifty toppings run the gamut from the traditional---pepperoni, ,ui,rug", mushrooms to the non-traditional roasted eggplant, artichokes, feta cheese to uniqui black beans, garlic mashed potatoes, and mock duck. We also offer hoagies made on fresh bread, appetizers, homemade desserts, and fresh salads. High euality Servtce. PizzaLuce's high quality service makes for an enjoyable dining "*p..iE ... Our balance of delivery and dine-in builds customer loyalty. The longevity of service by many of our staff members to be testament toPizza Lucd commiffnent to the quality of our work environment. Cusiomer toyatly: Our unique gourmet pizzas are only available through PizzaLuce. A craving for pepperoni can take a customer anywhere - a craving for garlic mashed potatois or moct duck pizza brings them home toPiz.z.al-uce. Our gourmet specialties build a bond with our customers that keep them coming back for more. (lnique llrban Atmosphere: Tattoos, piercing, patio seating, and late night hours all add to th; unique urban atmosphere that makes PizzaLuce a destination for suburbanites, and 1. z. 5. 4. : 2ir- I Il 1 i i ! I i r-i! ti ! t.lI i... I t tI It I I I 1. t i :i- I I i , t ll t i i I i I i: I I Confidential Page 3 91712006 a natural for natives. Company Summary Established in l993,P.izza Lucd began as a quick service and delivery restaurant in Minneapolis' historic Warehouse Dishict. The quality of our pizzaand,delivery service resulted in a high volume of sales-including over 100 corporate accounts. As the warehouse district blossomed into Minneapolis' preeminent night spot the demand for more in store space grew-leading to an expansion of our dining room including the addition of a full service bar in ZOOO. tn 1999 we brought our unique style to South Minneapolis, opening our Uptown location on Lyndale Avenue. In 2001 we were proud to open our third location in Duluth, Mn. This location is at the corner of Lake and Superior Streets in Downtown Duluth.In 2003, we opened our Sgward/University location on the eastside of south Minneapolis. This uddition of this location allows PizzaLuce to deliver to 90Yo of south Minneapolis--covering the majority of the population of Minneapolis, the majority of the business hubs and all hospitals coileges in Minneapolis. AtPizzalucd, we take great pride in the quality of our food. Over the past thirteen years, we've leamed a lot about how to do make a distinctive pizzathatbuilds customer loyalty. Some of our awards include: ffi",$';,Tffiffi PizzaLuce Management, Inc, (PLM) was incorporated in 2001 with the purpose to realize volume efficiencies, manage the brand, and ensure product quality and uniformity. PLM centralizes the accounting, cash management, accounts payable, receivable, payroll and employee benefits and marketing functions. All of the stores General Managers report to PLM's CEO. Management offices are in the same building as our flagship location in Minneapolis' Historic Warehouse District.. t l i.- i r ! I I lEb I ! ! T- ItL ti I I I I I t I i t I I I! iL l i I ! i t I i ! iL a t Ii J I Confidential Page 4 91712006 Gompany OwnerchiP pizzaLuceconsists of 6 separate corporations (sub-chapter SF--one for each restaurant, a management company and a propertiis company. Joe liaier is the majority owner in each of the six cotpani es.pizzaLace SetUylLexington wili be incorporated as a separate company-Pizza Luce V. Company Locations and Facilities PizzaLucehas four restaurants and one corporate office: Downtown MinneaPolis Established in 1993, the quirky atrnosphere of Pizzaluc6 quickly became the perfect match for the lively Warehouse Disnict.'Located near the Target Center, numerous downtown theatres, nigfrt.fufir & art galleri e:s,Pizzaluc6 is the ideal eiperience to round out any excursion into the heart of downtown Minneapolis. The late-night scene at Luc6 is second to none-the food and music are flowing until2 ,- ott weeknights and 3 am on the weekends, long after other restaurants in the area have closed their doors for the evening. Our delivery area is North of Franklin, west of 35W, East of the Hwy 100 South of 18u Ave. NE. It includes Downtown fufioneapofis, South Minneapolis neighborhoods of Loring Park, Kenwood, Lowry Hill, Stevens Sqrurr, purt of phillips and'Aryn Mun*; North Minneapolis neightorhoods of Harrison and Near Norttr, NBIsB Minneapolis neighborhoods of Marcy Holmes, old st. Anthony and Sheridan and the western suburb of Golden Valley. The Downt ownpizzaluce has 166 seats and serves an average of 5,100 customers a week. Average monthly sales are $280,000 made up of 55% delivery ail 45%o dine-in and carry-out' Uptown MinneaPolis Ait , y.*, of customer requests for a location on the south side of Minneapolis, we caved in to the pressure .pizzaluc6, Uptown rapidly became a popular neighborhood hangout. The dining ,oorn i, as cozy as it gets *ith * Uptown feel-just the righr atmosphere to complernent a casual meal. In the sr.ilrmer months, there's no better place than our outdoor patio to relan under the trees for lunch, enjoy a beer or glass of wine for happy hour, or settle in for dinner. Our delivery area is south of nranklin, west of 35W, east of the Lakes and north of Minnehaha parkway. It includes the Southwest Minneapolis neighborhoods of Uptown, Lyndale, Kingsfilld, Whitter, Lowry Hill East, East Calhoun, East Isles and East Harriet' The Uptown PizzaLuceis a compact operation-the restaurant occupies about 2,700 square feet and has 64 dine in seats (during the summer we add 25 seats on our patio. The store's average monthly sales are $182,000. Downtown Duluth Luc6 Duluth is the very definition of "taking a good thing to the next level." Designed and built from the bottom up, this location incorporates many aspects of the look, feel, and philosophy of eight years of Luc6 success. Located in the elegant Technology Village, the polished dining ro-om includes a striking view of otr show kitchen-watch yotx pizzabeing tossed in the air , I i I I i I i I I I i i ! I-I i ri J t- I i ::- I1-i i Z a I i ! ! I i i i Confidential Page 5 91712006 from your table! A lounge & bar (separately ventilated for smoking) occupy a comfortable corner of the space. Pizzaluce Duluth has been a popular destination since we opened. We won the bestpizzain Dtiluth four months after we opened-we have received thiJ honor again in 2004 and 2005. Luce Duluth is a force on the local music scene hosting local and Minneapolis bands several nights a week and for Saturday and Sunday brunch. PizzaLuce Duluth is our largest restaurant with 5,800 sq. feet and26l dine in seats. The store's average monthly sales are $178,000.. Seward/University Minneapolis PizzaLuce Seward is our newest location. This neighborhood location is similar toPizzaLuce Uptown in its size and neighborhood feel. tt differs from Uptown with its full bar and huge delivery arca. Pizzaluce, SewardAJniversity is located in the heart of the Seward neighborhood onZ2ndand E. Franklin with easy access toI-94,35W, University Avenue, Cedar Avenue, River Road, and Hiawatha Avenue. A light rail stop is located 3 blocks away at the intersection of Franklin and Cedar Avenues. The delivery areas covered by this location includes the Augsburg College Campus and the University of Minnesota east and west bank campuses, U of Mi*.rot and Fairview-Riverside hospitals,280Indusrial Park, Seward, E. River Road/Prospect Park, Cedar-Riverside, Phillips, Longfellow, Corcoran, Powderhorn and Marcy neighborhoods as well as the Merriam Park and South St. Anthony neighborhoods in St. paur. The Seward PizzaLtce is a compact operation-the restaurant occupies about 2,900 square feet and has 80 dine in seats and a full bar. The store's average monthly sales are $155,000. New Store: Selby/Lexington Parkway St Paul The purpose of this business plan is to open a new PizzaLuce in the Lexington/Hamline neighborhood of St. Paul. Building on the success of our 3 Minneapolis locations we are poised to bring our delivery and in store dining experience to St. Paul. We have had a lot of requests to bingPizzaluce to St. Paul from residences of our sister city. Our Iocation at 1183 Selby Avenue is only 4 miles east of our Seward location. The new store's delivery area will be natural eastward expansion for Pizza Luce. This location has easy access to I-94, Ayd Mill Road University Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Downtown St. Paul. The restaurant is close to Victoria Crossing on Grand Ave, Snelling Avenue Corridor, Midway area of University Avenue, Lexington Avenue. The are highly traveled areas with significant retail presence. The delivery area of this location has the Mississippi River as its western and southern boundaries with Energy Park Drive as the northern boundary and DT St. Paul as the eastern boundary. The delivery area is rich with two of Pizza Luce's targeted customers-Colleges and Hospitals. The delivery area incorporates the College of St. Catherine, St. Thomas University, Macaelster College, Concordia College, Hamline University, William Mitchell College of Law and Gillette Children's and Region's Hospitals. The neighborhoods served by delivery include the Midway area of St. Paul, Merriam Park, Highland Park, Crocus Hill, Lexington-Hamline, Cathedral heights, Downtown St. Paul. Il.E !E i I I ! i i F: I I I t i I IIi I I I i t l I i il I I I i- I iI Ii I I I II I i t I I I,I ti I I *l I I I I Ir: l I I I Ii I i i I I I i Confidential Page 6 91712006 pizzaLuceSelbyllexington is located in a single story commercial building in the center of the block. This 4,10b sq ft building is owned by JBB Properties which is owned by our founder Joseph Baier. fhis +,000 rq,ruir ft restaurant will feature 92 dine-in seats and a full bar. In the summer of 2007 we will open a 24 seat outdoor patio' Products For most of our customers PizzaLucemeans the highest qualrty award-winning gourmet Pi7za, In addition to traditional toppings, PizzaLuceoffers unique toppings like our holse made black t.*r, garlic mashed potatoes, jirk chicken, mock duck and homemade meatballs' While 60% of our business ispizza,PizzaLtcealso offers hot/cold hoagies, salads, a variety of appetizers, pastas and homemade desserts. PizzaLuce serves beer and wine at all locations with full bars at our downtown, Seward and Duluth restaurants. ln addition to our gourmet quality pies, we are unique among Piz-zaDelivery restaurants in that our entire menu is available for delivery allowing o* "urlo-ers a wide set of options. ln response to our loyal customets,Pizza tuce is dedicated to maintaining the diversity of vegetarian & vegan alternatives 91 our menu, including the use of our originairinatla - avegan cheese altemative made fresh daily at our restaurant. I I lrl l.t-I I I i 1 I I i!_ i t i i I II I I I I! I tII i l ITiii I i Confidential Page 7 91712006 Pizza Luce ltem Sales Mix Hoagies/Pasta 11o/o Product Description A complete menu is attached. Com petitive Comparison PizzaLwe occupies a unique niche in Minneapolis' pizzarestaurants. We offer gourmetpizza for both delivery and dining in. This is a very competitive market in which Piz.zaluce has excelled in the past thirteen years to build a strong, loyal customer base. Competition -Type Our competition is divided into 4 categories: .PizzaDelivery .Pizza-Dining in .Causal Dining Restaurants PwzaDelivery: Competition for customer dollars are divided into to two categories: i ! I =i ,) Ir-t- ! I tE I I ! i :.:. DeBserts i it I II t, t Ii l t: i a t I i I i II I Confidential Page 8 91712006 National Brands-Pi zza Httt, Domino's, Papa John's Local Brands-Danvanni's, Green Mill, Broadway Pizza,Uptown Pizza, Galactic Piz,za" Golooney's East Coast Pizza,Leaning Tower of Piz.za. They specialize in fast traditional pizza and do not challengePizzaluce's dominance of the high quality gourmet piz.za. Piz,za-Dining irr.Pizzaluce's significant regional competitors are Green Mill and Davanni's. In the downtown market there is Old Chicago, Broadway Piz.za, and Davanni's. In Duluth there is Sammy's, Bull Dog, Old Chicago, and Green Mill. In Uptown there is Green Mill, Davanni's, Old Chicago, Punch iizzo,and Leaning Tower of Pizza.In the Seward/University area there is Davanni's, Bob's West Bank Pizza"Pizzahut, Campus Pizza, and Leaning Tower of Piz-za- ln the Selby/Lexington area there is Green Mill,PiztaPazz1Paisano's Piua, and the Italian Pie Shoppee. Full-service Restaurants : Neighborhood independents with low to moderate prices, alcohol, vegetation options, kid friendly, cool environment are our competition. Examples include: Cafe Latte, Green Mill, the Happy Gnome, the Muddy Pig, D'Amaco, Punch Pizza. Summary pizzaLui|occupies a unique space in the market. Within the local market PizzaLuce has the highest quality and the moit variety and unique toppings. We also cater to vegetarian and vegan c16to111.ir. We each of our locations each have a distinctive personality and we have a hip, urban vibe. On the delivery scene we do not compete with the national brands for two reasons--our quality and selection is much higher and they offer deep discounts resulting in price-points that we cannot match. We have the competitive advantage of a well run delivery service. We strive to fill our orders at 45 minutes or less and we offer the largest menu of all our competitors. For pizzadine in restaurants we offer high quality gourmet pizzawithlots of choices and a dining room with funky, urban neighborhood vibe. While we are kid friendly we are not a mom and pop pizzajoint. When compared to other causal dining establishments again our food and our ambience set us a part. Going toPizzaluce is a particular experience that cannot be duplicated. Sourcing A complete list of ow vendors and the nature of the relationship is below: i i 1 ai ,i ! i Ei i Ir' I !.,- I ! , I I I !I I i I I I I Ir Confidential Page 9 9/712006 FOOD Reinhart Food Service 12400 Commerce Blvd Rogers, Mn 55374 Pohl Food Service 551 Topping St. St. Paul, MN 55103 651-487-1377 Swanson Meats 270026fr. Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55406 612-721-4411 American Linen T00Industrial Blvd NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 612-331-1600 EOUIPMENT Palm Brothers 1031 Madeira Ave Minneapolis, Mn 55405 Foremost Business Systems 4844ParkGlen W Minneapolis MN 55416 952.-920-8449 LIOUOR Phillips Wine & Spirits Wine Merchants 1999 Shet'ard Road St. Paul, MN 551l6 6s1-637-3300 Mark VII Distributors 475 N. Prior Ave St. Paul, MN 55104 651-646-6063 Eastside Beverage Co. 1260 Grey Fox Rd Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-482-1133 Kuether Distributing 6982Hwy 65 NE Minneapolis, MN55432 763-571-4115 l i I I I I- I i' t-- I I t+- I I I I I I t I I Confidential Page l0 91712006 Technology Kitchen Technolory Top quality kitchen lquipment from our ovens, to our refrigeration, to our dishwasher. We own all of ow equipment. -B".uwe of our volume it is important to keep all of our equipment well maintained with very little downtime. POS Technolory PizzaLuceus.s-the latest technology to support our customer service, mine customer data, drive marketing campaigns and provide quality assurance. Market Analysis Summary Our target market is people who want to have a gourmet pizz'awiththe highest quality ingrediJnt. For dine in we target people who want a decidedly urban restaurant with the diversity of food and a mellow atmosphere and speed of service. These people can be right out of college or thirty, forty or fifty-somethings. They include folks without and with children. The common bond is a love of real goodpizza. For delivery, our most common customer lives in an apartment building, works in an office setting, resides in a college residence hall, works at a hospital or is staying in a hotel. PizzaL;rlce Selbyllexington shares many of the attributes asPizzaluce Seward. They are similar in size and are both located in neighborhoods. Selby's delivery area includes 5 colleges which is similar to Seward having the U of Mn and Augsburg college. Selby/Lexington will deliver to St. Paul's main hospitals Regions and Gillette which is similar to Seward who delivers to Abbott and Children's hospitals in Minneapolis. Selby will delivery to all hotels along University Ave and in DT St. Paul. This is similar to Seward's hotel service in the U of Mn area and Chicago and Lake. Using data from the 2000 census we found that zip codes surrounding the Selby location and the zip codes surrounding our Uptown and Seward locations to be similar demographically. All of thlse areas have high concentration of renters which is good for pizza delivery. They also have large concentrations of folks between the ages of 15-44 which are targeted demographics. They .u.h hur" significant numbers of folks with college plus education which is also a positive for PizzaLuce, While the Selby location isn't as dense in residential dwellings-the central location and proximity to restaurant hot spots (Selby/Dale and Grand Ave) will makePir.zal.uce a convenient dining location for St. Paul residents. PizzaLuce is superior to our competition because: 1. Better Pizza: 2. Better Ambiance: 3. Better Brand: t I-i- I I I iir I IE ts l- IIi I t.r t., tI l I i I I I I I I I I t I I Irr I I i f i Ii- Confidential Pagell 91712006 Marketing Strategy Based on our experience and the fact that we are a well-regarded brand within Minneapolis it is our expectation that Luce Selby-Lexington will experience rapid sales growth. To facilitate building a customer base we will begin servicing a large portion of new delivery area from our existing Seward location and will begin including the new delivery area in our direct mail campaigns to create a level of excitement about the restaurant. Marketing for all of our locations is accomplished out of our management office budget of over $200,000. Our marketing plan forPizzalucd Selbyllexington will be based on strategies proven successful for us during the past. l. We will utilize our existing advertising such as weekly print ads in City Pages, The Onion, radio spots and in store advertising to promote our newest location. 2, We will employ other traditional media outlets to generate interest and sales. We will seek coverage in the Pioneer Press, and local newspapers in neighborhood's covered by thePizza Luce Selby-Lexington delivery area including college publications. We will use guenilla-marketing techniques-such as flyering homes, apartments, hospitals, office buildings and hotels to inform potential customers in the area that we have arrived. 3. Based on our high level of success with direct mail in the past, will send our delivery menus, postcards and refrigerator magnets announcing our arrival and promoting several with special offers to homes within our delivery area. 4. We will send out e-mail news bulletins to our ever-growing customer database with special offers and events at our newest location. We will also engage in a campaign to collect emails of customers within our new delivery area. 5. We will work closely with neighborhood associations, schools, colleges, hospitals, arts organizations, and the food co-ops to stimulate word-of-mouth advertising. We will have a splashy public gand opening event, with signage at the location and special discounts to create a celebratory atmosphere for the neighborhood and our guests. To generate a large attendance at this event, we'll use a broad combination of direct mail, e-mail, print advertising and radio. We will investigate co-operative advertising possibilities with local businesses and arts organizations. We will aggressively solicit corporate accounts with area businesses and organizations to give them the freedom to place orders on credit with Pizza Luc6. We are also plaruring initiatives at area colleges, such as placement of ads on dorm room doors. We feel that the combination of the above methods will ensure a broad reach to introduce ourselves to the various neighborhoods adjacent to our new location. Project Team Joe Baier Majority owner/founder, Pizza Luc6 President i ; I i I I: I I I.'t,' I T I I F F_rI- t I 1:: t'l I I 6. 7. 8. 9. r- I Confidential Page 12 91712006 Joe holds a bachelor's degree in business from the University of Minnesota and has over l8 years of experience in the pizzeiaindustry. He worked as apizzadelivery drivgr for several years and for the past thirtien years, Joe has been actively involved in the nightly operations of PizzaLuc1-in particular our flagship location in Downtown Minneapolis. During the day, Joe is a toolmaker aithe Ford Motor Plant in St. Paul. Joe's primary stengths are his expertise in delivery service operations, his financial acumen and his ability to fix almost all of our equipment. J.J. Havwood CEO, PizzaLuc6 J.J. joined PizzaLucl in October 2001. A Minneapolis native, J.J. has a bachelor's degree from Brown University and a master's degree from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She has 10+ years of experience in higlrer education focused on planning and development of college food services, property managemen! university bookstores and residence halls operations. J.J.'s expertise is in budgeting and planning, construction management, marketing and administration. Laura Siskind Chief of Operations. Piz.zaLace Laura has been vithPizzaluc6 for over 12 years starting as a pizzacook, moving up to kitchen manager, the opening General Manager of our Uptown and Seward locations. Last year Laura joineJthe management offrce as the head of operations where she focuses on food quality, staff Laining and customer service. Laura has also developed several of Pizzaluc6's signature menu items is a stong promoter of Vegetarian and Vegan menu items. Michael Finkelstein Real Estate Consultant Mike has consulted withPizzal,uce for 4 years in all matters related to real estate including lease negotiations and property valuation and acquisition. Mike's specialty is urban commercial real estate including commercial and investment property sales and leasing, property repositioning / redevelopment, development, select buyer and tenant representation and consultation. Mike serves on the boards of the Uptown Association and Lake Street Council. Nathanial Shea Principal, Tanek Architects Nat has worked withPizzal,uce since 2003 including designingPizzaluce Seward and the major renovation of Pizzal,uce Uptown. Nat is a registered architect with over 14 years of restaurant and retail experience. Tanek Architects is focused on designing urban and neighbor infill projects in Twin Cities, their goal is to enhange existing neighborhoods through quality design. Brent Lindstrom Proj ect Manager, Zeman Construction Brent has worked withPizzaluce since 2003 and has project managed 2 major projects- builiding Piz.zaLuce Seward from a vacant shell to a full service restaurant and the complete renovation of the public spaces of Pizza Luce Uptown. Zeman Construction is the premier i I I .[I t ! I I I t Ir I i- I !j I i I 'i i" i.i- i.,. ti I tEtsI I I f!.:: I I I Ii i I I I I I Confidential Page 13 91712006 builder of restaurants in the Twin Cities with over 50 full service restaurants in their portfolio. Zeman will be the General Contractor forPizzaluce Selby. Chad Johnson Partner, Hellemuth & Johnson, PLLC Chad has worked tttrthPizzal.uce since 1993 and is a founding partner of Hellemuth & Johnson, PLLC. He practices in the areas of real estate and business law and represents businesses, corporations and limited liability entities, with emphasis on representing condominium, townhouse, cooperative and other community associations. February 14, 2012 RE: File # 12-000964 Dear City Council members, We would like to express our support of the variances that were granted by the Council for the proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby Ave for Pizza Luce. Pizza Luce has been a good neighbor to us and have always responded when we approach them with issues or concerns. Many neighbors have expressed concerns about customer parking and we see that Pizza Luce is again trying to be a good neighbor by finding a way to provide additional off-street parking. We are glad to have them in the neighborhood hope that you will deny this appeal. We would much rather see the lot at 1170 Selby be put to use and be improved with new fencing and lighting than have it sit as a vacant lot. Thank you. Sincerely, Ellen and David Tzeutschler 1192 Dayton Ave St Paul MN 55104 Dear Councilmember Carter - I understand that the St. Paul City Council will be taking up the request for variances from Pizza Luce for the proposed parking lot on Selby Avenue this Wednesday. I live at 1121 Hague Avenue - about a block and a half to the east and one block to the south of Pizza Luce. I attended the community meeting on January 31 and know that some of my neighbors are opposed to the approval of the variances and thus the parking lot. At that same meeting, I heard comments by staff of and consultants for Pizza Luce regarding their efforts to respond to neighborhood concerns. I also heard support for the variances, with safety conditions suggested, from my neighbors. Below is the message I sent to the Union Park District Council later the evening of January 31. I understand that the variance requests have been approved by Union Park and that Pizza Luce has continued to work closely with the neighbors immediately to the west of the lot. I am unable to attend the Council meeting on Wednesday, February 15, but I want you and your colleagues on the City Council to be aware of my support of Pizza Luce's request. Pizza Luce has responded to the concerns expressed by neighbors, particularly those to the immediate west of the lot, carefully and considerately. At this point, it is prudent to move forward and allow Pizza Luce to develop the proposed parking lot. It is my hope that the Council will approve the request for variances. Sincerely, Kathy Mann Arnott 1121 Hague Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104 651-225-4447 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kathy Mann Arnott <klmannarnott@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:03 PM Subject: Pizza Luce proposed parking lot To: anne@unionparkdc.org Cc: Margaret Jones <margaretjones1181@gmail.com>, LHCC-Director <lexham@lexham.org>, sarah@unionparkdc.org Good evening Anne - I attended the meeting this evening regarding the variance request by Pizza Luce to construct a parking lot at 1170 Selby. I write to express my support for the necessary variances. Pizza Luce has been a significant, positive addition to our neighborhood. As a proud city dweller, I am encouraged by the development and growth of small businesses in my neighborhood. I value having Pizza Luce within a five minute walk of my home. In fact, I would welcome the addition of a coffee shop, bakery, neighborhood grocer, dry cleaner, etc. nearby. When Pizza Luce announced plans to build a restaurant on Selby Avenue, I was delighted. I knew then, as I know now, that having small businesses in my neighborhood is good for the economic growth of my community. And Pizza Luce has proven to be a good neighbor in Lex-Ham on macro- and micro-levels. Tonight I heard that Pizza Luce's immediate neighbors have been more than satisfied by the responsiveness and attentiveness Pizza Luce has given to their comments and concerns. I also know that Pizza Luce has been a good neighbor to the Lex-Ham Community Council - contributing gift certificates to community events, spaghetti sauce to our annual spaghetti dinner and much more. Pizza Luce has created an attractive addition to Selby Avenue with their clean and dynamic store front, plantings, pink dinosaur and more. The creation of more off-street parking can only assist our neighborhood. The plans as proposed by Pizza Luce are thoughtful and have considered the immediate neighbors. Consideration to fence height, greening, lighting, etc. has been done in meaningful conversation with the immediate neighbors. I sense a receptiveness by the Pizza Luce representatives to safety improvements as proposed by the meeting attendees. I hope that Union Park will add their support to the variance request made by Pizza Luce to the city. I wholeheartedly endorse their requests and firmly believe that their track record as a good neighbor will continue as they move forward on the construction of the new parking lot. Sincerely, Kathy Mann Arnott 651-470-3383 To Members of Saint Paul City Council, I oppose the two variances thatPizzaluce wants for 1170 Selby Avenue. Giving the variances for this lot will not solve anything. Instead putting a second parking lot 100 feet across the street from the present parking lot will create an incredible safety hazardon Selby Avenue. There are multiple problems with this lot and creating the second lot will mirror the same unsafe conditions that exist withPizza Luce's existing lot. I oppose the two variances also because the second lot does not address the primary ."uso, that we are having problems. Because Pizzaluce is a large corporate business, it needs to have huge amounts of cars coming into our neighborhood. It promised to be a neighborhood business. A neighborhood business should be able to survive primarily on neighborhood customers or nearby customers. Instead it is a business for the entire Twin Cities area. I have come to rcalizethatPizzaluce is beyond "neighborhood" in its business plan. As along term property owner in this neighborhood I know of neighbors who are planning to do less, not putting large investrnents into their homes and properties. This is i business that has a greater concern for its profits than keeping the qualities of this neighborhood that brought us here. What was once a quiet, truly pleasant neighborhood is now invaded by crowds of strangers every day who care little about ourneighborhood, our livability or quality of life concerrs. The problems is again the fact that large numbers of cars from all over, are coming together at a business located in the middle of a residential avenue that is a collector avenue. It is too big a business for this residential neighborhood. AddressPizza Luce's business plan. $eny the granting of the variances. Avenue Paul, MN r* -, ,";o' 5,n cU- i 9l"B fis \yt- buu-r, lrur-c S .r vn {s Yr e'.s t'v u 5st o, e-*furra,nga-/, Sur,o; S cl-,u-",J0. S ,.,, tfnqfg-, e-,. 6rr-n'!tJ 0-g ?uc"rE 7u.SS *rrF$,\- ',.,.rrr. SJi.S, V",'i nr Vt,U coc-1ons -ri- -tr,',.L)- 91,< l-,lSo r,:a-S bo-<.)So- 6€',*s /-oo"|ho) d. &Lb? .+-./w- r5)ru.,^u-*s tllru b\>rnt-551-> A)ruv^u J,. Y\h r'"4- u gD-, q--f ):r s nol l) n t na.LLt D a.., d ,>-e \ts* cr-J-],- N9 tLo-..>Sr* +f Vor,- Ns ,-\ult-. Y"rJ; 1ro'n \tA;f l-,o.\e-vo'.. t-lfz Ll-taa7w 5rz,rca- p,Z=r- t,)cu- rt-t,>vwJ rzr \6rr- nur-y t lr-1""d r \ bo a rJa-' , n" On SL\crdu- *-a- Aot SLL}? An\-, I h"r-u &. o,.1 ,1Ym ^f Q-, Yr-., r,,L)ft)rn a.-,d rqY>ra ho-V ,--r- *-r-- \4rL r>-, CO^W a d-t Ori i,z tc r t o >S n, q hYS a.- il. al-u--\-^ J).-or -lAvr.,- SsLuuj a).,^>S A^.OiAmzrz e O-fhv> ;,LL b7t'7\ , rsr s/n* oS7- tn orY-- E ^"6)ort\t-t7 . Y^n -.1-.- ),YL c^- d o b o *-t - Lr-;g t V Af t>.nd!-S ,>-<- .z- AoR- ?.) d^tLL 1< N"l z-l l, 2>4 -fu Yorr. a: ..)\L( r,ls- Y1-u,- b Ylrv Nl.d bt Vck IXu d,Ero.^&r5,- V6o:,,- alc--rn-ud 5,:fu- ?u-f,."1 lrVS - N[ro, ,,^, tr;s-- d)r,aq o?n l-o.: r-= tflrr-at qly Ja=,.u=< lro,:r.- Lo.^\st- oT-YLn \fr.U /-;-t F,: tL , (ow /Liaih'nq \fln ;2','z-t:o$on r,-"--9 {od " - L^ - '' \,, -, J ., ., ) ^ , t - bn-"...\:s- G,.. o'fl}r o rta- ,tt {r ona of \",,/ \+4rt- 04 P > (y, D L,/ , --0 1lr 92) - LJ,' 'dz{ 44tV +\ uo zloTa'trP J?o jfo J-Yo )ouq f ar Zixz?v ov '-a4 vY -\ y(X"tA 6) (211512012) Shari Moore - Fwd: '1 170 Selby Page 1 From: Noel NixTo: Shari MooreDate: 2115120123:27 PMSubject: Fwd: 1170 Selby Attachments: Special meeting.odt; Special meeting.pdf; Withdrawal of Assent.pdf Foruvarded at constituent's request. >>> Mike Madden <mike@mudouppies.net> 211312012 9:36 AM >>> Dear CM's Stark and Carter, As I mentioned in my voice mail, the appellants of the BZA decision are suggesting alternative interim uses for the parcel that would be embraced by the neighborhood and attractive to Pizza Luce from a business perspective. We are hoping for an amicable resolution before Wednesday. I am attaching two documents drafted pursuant to D-13 bylaws that challenge the propriety of the UPDC board's February 1st decision. At this point, any representation of a D-13 position on the issue, written or oral, is premature. Sincerely, Mike Madden February th,2072 President Carla Olson Union Park District Council 1570 ConcordiaAvenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Dear President Olson, In accordance with bylaw 7.05, we, the undersigned, request that a special meeting of board of the Union Park District Council be called. The purpose of the meeting is to consider rescinding the board action of February L't, which supported the Board of Zoning Appeals decision to grant the variances requested for the Pizza Luce parking lot at LL70 Selby and opposed the appeal filed by neighbors. Mike Madden 1-768Iglehart Mike Andert 1433 Ashland Debbie Meister 13L2 Portland Zack Wilson 1288 Portland John Schatz 535 Glendale Monday, February 6e, 2012 President Carla Olson Union Park District Council l-570 Concordia Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Dear President Olson, In accordance with bylaw 5.09. Presumption of Assent, I am writing to inform you of the withdrawal of my assent to the board action of February L't,201.2 that expressed support for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision granting variances for the Pizza Luce parking lot at LL70 Selby and opposing the appeal filed by neighbors. The grounds for my withdrawal are threefold:. Notification for the board meeting appears to have been preferential.. The summary of the January 31" community meeting is objectionable and biased in its content and omissions.. The wrong motion was put on the floor for consideration. When the Land Use Committee (LUC) takes action on a request for variance, and there is a scheduled board meeting prior to the BZA hearing, it has always been our practice that the LUC decision is considered by the full board for affirmation or denial. Indeed, these motions have special status, they go automatically before the board and require no second. In this case, at its January 10ft meeting, the LUC had passed a motion withdrawing its support for the setback variances required for the parking lot. The special meeting held on January 31't was advertised as a community meeting for discussion of the general issues of traffic, safety, and neighborhood livability as weli as the appeal and variances. The LUC chair specifically said it was not a committee meeting and no motions would be entertained. In adherence to the chair's instruction, no motions were made or discussed. However, the summary of the community meeting, not seen prior to the board meeting and buried in a board packet some 90 pages long, Ieads with a proposed motion which, during report, the LUC chair promptly introduced supplanting the motion out of committee. The written summary is biased and objectionable in its content and omissions. It fails to mention many of the opposition views expressed at the meeting including; the inherent danger of curb cuts and vehicles crossing the sidewalk, the possibility that the parking lot will lead to restaurant expansion, late night noise, Iight pollution, the benefit of vehicles parked on the street to the pedestrian realm, the loss of a building, the loss of a buildable lot, and increased traffic drawn by free, abundant, and subsidized parking. It also makes no attempt to distinguish between those who are supportive of the parking lot and the appellants. Those who are already supportive did, by and iarge, embrace the mitigative measures. But to many of the appellants, the measures either; made a bad proposal even worse, were unworkable, were unenforceable, or doable independently of the unwanted parking lot. The claims that "Pizza Luce and the neighbors have agreed to continue reviewing suggestions for ways to improve pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the parking lot" and "The high resident turnout and constructive dialogue at the two community meetings on January 70'h and 31." indicated to the UPDC that Pizza Luce and neighbors are ready and willing to continue working together to make the 1170 porking lot work as well as possible..! Iumps all into the single category of "neighbors" and misrepresents those who do not want to continue dialogue (especially now that the Ieverage of UPDC recommendation is gone) and those who have made up their minds and simply oppose the lot and the requested variances. It is also improper to include in the summary any statement made privately, off the record, and after the meeting. Finally, it appears there was preferential notification for our board meeting. An electronic meeting reminder with a map was sent out to UPDC directors on the day of our board meeting. The two most powerful proponents of the parking lot, Pizza Luce and the Lex-Ham Community Council, were included in the email, but none of the opponents. Submitted by, Mike Madden To: Melvin Carter, City Council Member, Ward 1 2/14/2012 Re: An appeal of a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue - February 15, 2012 Dear Mr. Carter, I am the home owner at 1168 Dayton Ave. I have lived at that residence since 1983, 29 years. I am one of many neighbors opposed to the December 27, 2011 BZA decision to grant the variances for the Pizza Luce (PL) proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby and a supporter of the appeal of this decision brought forth to be reviewed by the City Council on February 15, 2012. Many of us neighborhood residents in opposition to the granting of those variances had submitted comments and attended that BZA hearing. In fact, twelve letters and a petition with 62 signatures opposing the variances were received by BZA. Only one letter in support was received by BZA and no one in support was in attendance at that hearing. At that hearing and at several Union Park District Council meetings, opposition neighbors have made an excellent case as to why we see the proposed parking lot as extenuating the problem of Pizza Luce in our neighborhood, not improving it. We spoke of the toll Pizza Luce has placed on our neighborhood since 2006...the horrible increase in traffic, noise, the already unsafe existing parking lot adjacent to the restaurant with cars backing out of the lot, the increased air pollution, noise and blocking of the delivery trucks constantly on Selby (there are no alleys), the sadness that a building had been torn down (one day before the variance hearing) for very little gain and the lack of communication from PL. Back in 2006, Pizza Luce originally represented themselves to the city and the neighborhood as a small neighborhood pizza parlor with 65 seats, open only until 11:00, with the peak times between 5:30 to 9:00pm, but this proved to be false. In fact, it has a mission to be more of a bar destination, hoping to attract suburbanites into the inner city. Here is a paragraph from its mission statement: "Unique Urban Atmosphere: Tatoos, piercing, patio seating and late night hours all add to the unique urban atmosphere that makes Pizza Luce a destination for suburbanites and a natural for natives." Immediately they had 108 seats, were open 7/365 days a year, from 10 am to 2:30 am., plastered their windows with beer signs to seemingly attract a younger drinking crowd, aggressively lobbied to get a liquor license, bought up other properties on Selby, and have been unsuccessfully trying to secure the required signatures to rezone one of those properties for an outdoor patio, a very contentious city-wide issue, and one the neighborhood has been fighting. The original approved site plan was totally different than what is occurring today. Additionally, PL has never been in compliance with city codes and their original granted variances regarding handicapped parking and any required variances to accommodate a larger establishment with more seating. There are suspicions that the same thing will happen with any newly granted variances. Pizza Luce is a chain corporation with aggressive metro-wide marketing, not a small business sensitive to the neighborhood into which they plopped one of their many restaurants, in the middle of the block with 18 residences. Naturally, when we are all suffering now from the affects of their business, there is worry and suspicion about their ever-increasing expansionist efforts. We are concerned about our neighborhood livability. The proposed parking lot is inherently unsafe. It will encourage more traffic. Because of its narrow size, vehicles will have to back out of the lot onto Selby, with little visibility to persons on the sidewalk. There will be more U-Turns, jaywalking, and blocked driveways and intersections. We fear declining housing values, loss of privacy and diminished security when the goal of Pizza Luce, as outlined in their mission statement, is to bring in customers from the whole metro area who are not invested in our neighborhood. Additionally, we have been frustrated by what we see as a very biased and improper process conducted by the UPDC (Union Park District Council), the neighborhood and Pizza Luce. The residents had not been notified of the initial discussion of the PL proposed parking lot request for variances and were totally unaware that UPDC had recommended support for them prior to the BZA hearing. Even after UPDC was notified of this appeal and was asked to withdraw their support, which they did at first, and we were able to show how much opposition there was to the variances, they again held a meeting, notifying PL but not any of us. A credible process has not been followed by UPDC. I ask the council to request some environmental and economic impact studies before proceeding. More study is needed to determine the impact Pizza Luce has on emissions, volume of traffic, traffic flow and abatement, safety issues, property values, residential tax base. We would like neighbors in the community to be interviewed about their quality of life as it relates to the impact of Pizza Luce's presence. There is time to consider this. The current infrastructure is sufficient for our neighborhood. Pizza Luce states they have NO need for this lot, that they have the required off-street parking. As of right, now this lot is unnecessary. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Janet Lotzer 1168 Dayton Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Shari Moore - Selby Ave Safety Concerns Dear City Council Member Carter, All Council Members and Staff, I am writing as a 20 year homeowner, tax payer and resident of 1188 Selby Ave, Saint Paul. My concerns involve the on-going, and growing, congestion and traffic associated with customers visiting Pizza Luce at 1183 Selby Ave. Since Pizza Luce opened for business in 2006, the livability of our neighborhood has been negatively impacted as a result of the business scope of what the restaurant/pub has marketed itself to become. While Luce has restored an unoccupied building, adding positively to the neighborhood, the noise levels and parking/driving hazards grow each day. It is my observation that Luce is a business that has grown, and states want to grow even more, out of scope for our residential neighborhood. Examples of negative impact to resident's livability include: Congested traffic, especially in the dark evening hours, with frequent backing out of their parking lot onto busy Selby Ave, constant u-turns in the middle of the street as patrons race for an open spot on the street, my driveway blocked by parking patrons and taking one’s life in one’s hands just trying to back out of my own driveway given speed, congestion and carelessness. And add the MTC 21 bus every 20 minutes to the mix. I personally have seen 3 car accidents as a result of people backing out of the Luce parking lot. People also double park outside of Luce to run in and pick up a pizza or to pick up their party members. Patron’s jay-walk at any point they choose across Selby. Garbage trucks backing up with loud, beeping monitors very early in the morning many days a week, semi's delivering product in the middle of the night or during business hours (usually double-parked). The hazards of Pizza Luce being “too large” for this neighborhood are many: serious threats to safety due to traffic congestion, threat to pedestrians, noise pollution and light pollution. We understood Pizza Luce to be entering the neighborhood, when it began, as a small 65 seat neighborhood pizza restaurant. It now seats 108 and its business plan includes additional growth. As a long-time resident of the neighborhood, I am asking that the City Council, prior to approving any variance request for additional parking lot for Luce on Selby, order an impact study of the increased volumes of traffic congestion and safety hazards on this block. Unfortunately, representation of our neighborhood, on this issue, through our Union Park District Council, has been insufficient, before and after, UPDC voting to support Luce’s variance request for which our appeal comes before the City Council 2/15/12. Respectfully submitted, Marjean Leary 1188 Selby Ave Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 612-968-0135 From: <Smileleary@aol.com> To: <ward1@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward3@ci.stpaul.mn.us... Date: 2/13/2012 8:03 PM Subject: Selby Ave Safety Concerns CC: <noel.nix@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <patricia.lindgren@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <nicole... Page 1 of 1 2/14/2012file://C:\Documents and Settings\smoore\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F3A174Cmail... Walter Jirik 1184 Dayton Avenue February 14, 2012 To: Melvin Carter, City Council Member, Ward 1 Re: Appeal regarding approval of two variances to build a parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue. Zoning File# 12-000964 I am opposed to granting the variances for the parking lot located at 1170 Selby Avenue. The arguments of this request demand thoughtful, serious consideration to all the variables there are about this parking lot. I hope that political expediency and underlying, simple reasoning are not the factors that tip the balance of decision making. The neighbors have sober, earnest concerns about creating this second parking lot and the serious traffic issues it will exacerbate. The granting of the variances will not alleviate or mitigate the parking problem. In 2006 when Pizza Luce persuaded the neighborhood to welcome it, Pizza Luce minimized concerns of the neighbors about parking by assuring that parking was not an issue at its Seward Minneapolis business. Based on similarity to the Seward site, Pizza Luce claimed that it did not expect parking to become an issue at the Selby location. Pizza Luce now gives mitigation as the purpose of its request but denies the root cause of the traffic issue. The causal relationship of the now-recognized problem of traffic is the comprehensive, aggressive marketing strategy of this business. It is requesting relief from itself. Is the city obligated to relieve a property owner of hardships that the property owner himself created? It has not been an acceptable premise for all those persons who built without permits, stored junked cars on lawns, or used a domestic basement workbench to mass produce and sell a product sold from their homes. Occupying a singular B-2 building in the middle of a primarily residential street on a collector avenue without access to an alley for alternative traffic circulation, as a restaurant, is permissible by the city zoning codes. What many neighbors do not understand is that the designation does not address the intensity or actual activities of what actually occurs in a business’ building. The designation seems not to be concerned about the dynamic impacts of what occurs around a business. What also is not understood is that all the conditions on this collector avenue have existed since this street and proximate streets were platted in 1890’s. Expert advisors to a business should be keenly aware of and investigate thoroughly the environment of interest and foresee disadvantages rather than assuming it would simply alter that environment to fit the business needs. I oppose the variances because of the incredible safety issues that the creation of this second parking lot creates. The parking lot does not address the causes of the enormous volumes of traffic entering our neighborhood. A second parking lot solves nothing, and will instead encourage increased traffic, aggravating the core concerns about livability and safety that are pertinent to the neighbors. The city should do a comprehensive traffic study and also continuously monitor the existing parking lot at 1183 Selby Avenue over several weeks. Thank you for consideration, Walter Jirik Name: Bettine and John Hermanson Address: 1173 Hague Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55104 Date: February 12, 2012 To: Melvin Carter, City Council Member, Ward 1 Re: The appeal of the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue -‐ February 15, 2012 We are the homeowners of 1173 Hague Avenue, and this has been our home for the last 9 years. Our property borders the 1170 Selby property to the north. We are neighbors who oppose the BZA decision made on December 27, 2011 that granted the variances for the Pizza Luce proposed parking lot. We are supporters of the appeal that will be addressed by the City Council on February 15, 2012. We are sharing our concerns in this letter, and we thank you for taking the time to read and your willingness to understand our perspectives. Please know that safety in neighborhood is our main goal. We believe (as does the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan) that our neighborhood would benefit if we “Prioritize the development of compact commercial areas accessible by pedestrians and transit users, over commercial areas more readily accessed by automobile. Discourage new and expanded auto oriented uses.” (1.52) Like the City’s Comprehensive Plan we see bringing more traffic to our neighborhood as a disadvantage especially when we try to promote pedestrians and transit friendliness. These are conflicting goals towards safety. More parking will attract more traffic and put pedestrians and bikers at risk. Additional parking is not needed in our neighborhood as on-‐street parking is available (and plentiful), AND secondly, Pizza Luce already has their required off-‐street parking in place. The question becomes: Why are we adding an unsafe parking lot to our neighborhood, when 1. additional off-‐street parking is not needed and 2. the lot will decrease safety, quality of life, and livability for pedestrians, visitors and residents in our community? We want to make sure that you understand our point of view as residents to the Lex-‐Ham community and as adjacent neighbors to the proposed lot. As a resident of the Lex-‐Ham neighborhood: In our neighborhood we question and measure the quality of life and livability we experience and create here. This is our home, a place we want to thrive in, and the fact that we care, is a huge asset to this neighborhood. The group that is opposing the variance proposal, has a growing concern for the increased traffic that has occurred over the last 6 years. When Pizza Luce came into our neighborhood they presented their business as a small pizza restaurant seating 65-‐75 people. The business now seats approximately 110, a 35-‐36 % increase from the original presentation. It was promoted as a restaurant that delivers, but now includes take-‐out service and catering, and is open until 2:30 am every day. In addition they are planning to expand with a patio in the future, again adding more seats to their business. The Comprehensive Plan (1.13) calls out that scale of development be compatible with the neighborhood. In addition the Comprehensive Plan speaks to create an environment that is conducive to small, locally-‐owned businesses that can establish and sustain viability primarily through patronage from the local area, not the entire metro area as reflected in Pizza Luce’s marketing campaigns. By promoting neighborhood and local community self-‐sufficiency, we attain both sustainability and reduction on car dependency, a prime, principle, and comprehensive plan goal (1.51, 1.52 and 1.7). We argue that Pizza Luce’s growth and expansion have a negative impact on the safety of our community and is not scaled to be compatible with this neighborhood. Growth and expansion bring in a larger volume of costumers, which increase the traffic. More traffic is the problem. Not more parking. As an adjacent neighbor: Decreased Safety: The change in variances to a zero setback (and 1 foot) will create NO physical buffer between the adjacent properties. This setback will decrease our privacy and safety. Cars will be able to park there during opening hours from 11:00 am – 2:30 am, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. There is also the possibility of repeated damage to our properties (especially fences) as the lot is narrow leaving little space for cars to maneuver. In addition cars create noise pollution and the sound of engines starting and stopping, alarms going off, stereos being played, not too mention guests continuing conversation into the late night hours next to their cars, will be a daily nuisance for us, and have a huge affect on our private lives. The lot is remotely located in relation to the restaurant itself, and we wonder how Pizza Luce staff will monitor the lot? We have already witnessed loud conversations in the AM when Pizza Luce used the parking lot on the empty lot of 1170 Selby before putting up a temporary fence. We will also experience light pollution not only from the many headlights coming and going, but also from the light posts required by the city. These lights will go on at dusk and off at dawn 365 days of the year. Keep in mind that there is no alley on either side of Selby to provide a buffer and privacy between properties. In addition this means all cars enter on to Selby from residential properties and businesses. Increase in Pollution: Cars entering and exiting the lot will increase the exhaust pollution. Cars will leave the lot with 1.5 to 2 hours intervals for 15.5 hours every day! In addition, with new technology, car owners can start their car remotely and leave the engine on for their car to warm up or cool down depending on the season. We will most likely not be able to spend any time in our back yard due to exhaust pollution alone! Decrease of Property Value: The financial impact for us can’t be calculated. What we do know is this parking lot will have a negative impact on the desirability of our property. Who wants to buy a house next to a busy parking lot? Now you may ask if we didn’t know that we bought a house next to a commercial lot. And of course we did and we still do. We actually enjoy living in a neighborhood that provides a mix of commercial and residential uses. However we bought a house next to a commercial lot, NOT a parking lot. And there is a BIG difference here; we bought a house next to a commercial lot that had zoning codes in place. These zoning codes are created to promote and protect public health, safety, and general welfare of neighboring properties and human beings. By taking the setback zoning codes away, you are not only affecting and putting our health at risk, but you are also stripping us from our privacy and safety. The proposed lot is also a mirror image of Pizza Luce’s existing lot (which already shows hazardous and unsafe driving) and will put the larger community at risk. We also want to mention that ordinances are promises to citizens from our leaders. The promise is not to allow circumvention of intent and purpose. A variance is relief from a city’s zoning ordinance standards due to a regulation creating unnecessary hardship or a particular difficulty to a property owner. First of all we question what the hardship is for Pizza Luce in this case? In a letter we received from Pizza Luce they state that “Pizza Luce currently meets the City’s requirement for off street parking, on-‐street parking is tight on our block With that in mind, we purchased the vacant commercial building at 1170 Selby Ave to expand our off street parking capacity.” Is this the hardship? The fact that they have the required off street parking? Or because they claim that on-‐street parking is tight on this block and they want to expand off street capacity? Is that all it takes to prove a compelling need for a variance? And if that is the case, why are the adjacent neighbors AND the community asked to carry the burden this lot will inflict on our neighborhood? And isn’t it ironic that we as neighbors don’t see an off-‐street parking need as the main issue – but increased and increasing traffic as the main issue? From our perspective we are adding hardship by allowing this lot to be developed into additional parking! The Comprehensive Plan asks to recognize and promote the creation of a sense of place, an amenity that serves the community, where neighbors can interact in small ways and connect, creating and enhancing the fabric of community. 12 letters and a petition with 62 signatures opposing the variances were received by the BZA before the December 27th hearing, indicating strong opposition to this lot and variance changes. Only one letter was received in favor. To: City Councilman Melvin Carter This letter discusses the issues regarding the variance request for a parking lot at 1170 Selby Ave. Pizza Luce purchased this property in 2010. 1. Livability and Sustainability: A parking lot with variances on setbacks and variances on proximity to residential properties, will cause safety issues and increased congestion on Selby Avenue. The way the proposed lot is laid out , with no alley, and only one ingress and egress, will allow 9 -10 cars off the street, but will make it difficult for drivers to efficiently exit without causing a bottle necked lot with spillover onto Selby. This means that PL patron’s cars will have to back out of the lot onto Selby, exacerbating congestion. This impacts the safety of our neighborhood. No longer can our children play in our front yards, due to the increased traffic load. 2. The original presentation by Pizza Luce to our neighborhood was they were going to be a neighborhood pizza restaurant/parlor with 65-75 seats, they now are over 112 seats…. Through an aggressive marketing campaign, Pizza Luce has outgrown our neighborhood, and continues to ask for variance upon variance. Check on ongoing compliance over their tenure at their present 1183 Selby location, and a pattern emerges that is not congruent with being a neighborhood restaurant. Their Twin Cities marketing campaigns imply that Pizza Luce is a destination bar, open late with liquor and food. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…….. 3. There are over 75 signatures on a petition of long=term neighbors within a four block radius, who are not in favor of these variances being granted. How many additional buildings must be razed in our neighborhood to before notice is taken and the neighborhood is transformed? Building / zoning regulations are there for a reason. After variance upon variance, a residential neighborhood is being transformed, and property values will decline as a result. We are not opposed to Pizza Luce as a neighborhood pizza parlor, their original concept. Many of us are patrons. We are asking that the variances for this lot not be granted. Respectfully Submitted The concerned residents at 1201 Selby Ave. Mark Dunlop, Keara Dunlop, Cassidy Dunlop Ph. 612.670.1234 (2/14/2012) Shari Moore - variance appeal /Pizza Luce Page 1 From: <chandoerr@q.com> To:<ward1@ci.stpaul.mn.us> CC:<ward2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward3@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward4@ci.stpaul.mn.us... Date: 2/13/2012 3:31 PM Subject: variance appeal /Pizza Luce Melvin Carter: The reason for this letter is to address the issues that surround the new parking lot variance of 1170 Selby Ave. We, as concerned citizens in the neighborhood, have appealed the BZA's decision to grant the variances. There are four main points to our argument that need to be heard on our behalf before any decision is made. The first, one is "livability" and "sustainability". The second, is Pizza Luce' "original" proposal to the neighborhood. The third, is the "perceived partiality" of our community councils Lex/Ham and Union Park District Council. The fourth concern would be the need of a fair and comprehensive study based on the "impact" Pizza Luce has made on the traffic and safety of Selby Ave. It should be noted that Selby Ave has no alleys,so residents are required to back out. Once again we "NOT" trying to shut Pizza Luce down, we just want people to be aware that there are even more problems facing us if this new, unnecessary parking lot is granted. We feel that Pizza Luce should leave well enough alone because they have enough parking for the "small", "neighborhood" restaurant that they said they were going to be, had they adhered to their original presentation to the neighborhood in the Lex/Ham Eavesdropper in March of 2006,there would be no problem. There is a much deeper issue going on here, it is about a corporate enterprise coming from the outside and taking over your small residential neighborhoods without St Paul families having a voice. For us it is about the monopolization of our block due to the vastness of their marketing campaign and the late hours of business they keep(Restaurant 1:00am, deliveries until 2:30am, Brunch Saturday and Sunday10:00am to 2:00pm). This location is one of busiest of six. It has become apparent that their values are strictly business with a disrespect for the values of a residential neighborhood they have come to know. When does a supposably small restaurant become too big for a residential neighborhood? When does it become an infringement on our rights to "safety" "privacy" and "family" as a citizen and a home owner with 3 children who lives on Selby? Keep in mind this is exactly why "good" families with children move out and your block becomes rentals and forever changed. It took over 30 years to get this block back to owner occupied single family homes. It would be nieve to think Pizza Luce made it a safer and better place, it was that way long before they arrived. I ask you just for one moment, please put yourself in our shoes. The proposed parking lot is a mirror image of the parking lot they have now and forces people to back out onto Selby. So the problems they have now on the North side will be recreated two houses down on the South side at 1170 Selby. Ultimately safety will be compromised for very little gain. It should't be taken lightly that a Golden Lab was killed on New Years Day in front of Pizza Luce... an unwarranted tragegy. Zoning laws were made to protect home owners from this type of infringement. Thats why they are in need of two variances for 1170. Are demands are simple no patio (patio=more seats=more cars),curtail late hours and the parking lot across at 1170 is accident waiting to happen. Channon Doerr 1205 Selby Ave. DiMeglio 1148 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 February 15, 2012 To: Kathy Lantry, City Council Member, Ward 7 Re: Decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve two setback variances in order to build a new parking lot at 1170 Selby Avenue - February 15, 2012 As a resident of the neighborhood that will be negatively affected by Pizza Luce’s plans for the parking lot across the street from its Selby Avenue location, I am NOT in favor of the setback variances proposed by Pizza Luce. I have the following concerns and requests: 1. The negative impact on the quality of life and livability for resident families with increased and increasing traffic volume: a. Safety (Traffic and Pedestrian) U-Turns, drivers unfamiliar with city streets, blocked driveways, backing out onto Selby Avenue, crossing sidewalks, little visibility b. Pollution (Noise, Air, Light) 7/365 days a year, open from 10 am – 2:30 am c. Commercial Vehicles d. Declining Housing Values, loss of privacy e. Diminished Security (bringing in costumers from the whole metro area who are not invested in our neighborhood) 2. Pizza Luce’s original presentation to the neighborhood for a "Small, Neighborhood Pizza Parlor"in relation to its actual business plan: a. Originally stated 65 seats: Actual seating is now 108. b. Large marketing campaign brings in patrons from 20 mile radius/no longer “neighborhood c. Continuous non-compliance of City Codes, (handicapped parking infringements, request for variances to accommodate a larger establishment, more seating) d. Original approved site plan totally different than what is occurring today e. A re planning a patio with additional seating in their business plan 3. Poor communication between UPDC (Union Park District Council) and neighborhood: a. Little or no communication with residents (and UPCD) b. On-going communication with PL (and UPCD) - Credible process not followed - Notification of intent to residents (from Pizza Luce) has been neither timely nor clear 4. Impact studies needed: We want more study around this variance requests i.e. traffic study, interview neighbors in community about quality of life issues and impact of PL presence and the increased traffic volume. As of right now this lot is unnecessary (not needed by Pizza Luce). a. Economic: Property values, residential tax base, b. Environmental: Emissions, traffic volume and flow, and abatement. As a resident and patron of Pizza Luce, I believe the current infrastructure is appropriate for a neighborhood pizza restaurant and our neighborhood. I will attend the City Council Appeal on February 15 and hope that our elected representatives and local government entities will represent the concerns and interests of the citizens. Sincerely, Jeanne DiMeglio Dear Esteemed City Council Members, I'm writing as a relatively new home-owner in the Lex-Ham neighborhood, residing at 1196 Selby Avenue, just across the street from Pizza Luce. It is my hope with this letter that I might convey some of our thoughts around the parking lot variance being discussed today; express my overall support of Pizza Luce in the neighborhood; my appreciation for the safety concerns being raised by my neighbors; alongside my questions around the future of the business in this little urban residential / commercial corridor of St. Paul. My husband and 20 month old daughter moved into this once-vacant 107 year old home roughly nine months ago. We are thrilled to be members of this community. We feel fortunate to be in proximity to so many great people, families, parks, schools and businesses, and Pizza Luce is part of this. We have learned a bit about the history of Pizza Luce's presence from several of our neighbors, and met directly with the local manager and CEO. It's not an uncomplicated history or set of relationships, goals or agendas to digest. We tip our hats to all of you as you weigh what's being presented this day! My husband and I applaud the free enterprise spirit that Pizza Luce brings to this once economically- challenged neighborhood. We appreciate the stability that they lend to our section of the Selby Avenue corridor by being a thriving business. That being said, we also wonder about the effects of further development by this for- profit organization. We hold the concerns expressed by neighbors just adjacent to the Pizza Luce proposed parking lot as we consider our own interests in being new home- owners with a small child. Some questions that arise as my husband and I review this situation: • "What will the traffic volume look like when/ if this lot across from Luce becomes one with a zero-set back variance for parking? • How will further jay-walking between the lot and eating establishment affect safety of my child and all pedestrians, as well as that of drivers? • What does living close to a parking lot do for property values? • What happens if this doesn't become a parking lot? • Will this parking lot bring more business, more traffic and more noise and late nights to our community? • Is there a way to create a win-sin solution for all involved?" I do not have any answers: I am just writing to express the nuances of this situation from my perspective, and to advocate for my neighbors who are likewise raising questions and concerns. Thank you. -- Melissa Borgmann-Kiemde 1196 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 612.247.1151 Dear City Council Members, On February 26th, AnnMarie Fox wrote an excellent letter contrasting the proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby with the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan. I'd like to expand on that letter and bring to light the direction provided by the three legacy council plans which now comprise the Union Park community plan. Broadly, these plans call for support of the alternative modes and transit oriented development. They mention walkability numerous times and call for development that fits the scale of the neighborhood. Specific excerpts include: • LexHam: Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections centered around Griggs will unify the neighborhood. • SnellHam: The neighborhood is resolute about promoting a walkable, healthy, and safe environment through the use of design principles. Encourage economic development that enhances the pedestrian environment and keeps traffic off of local streets. • Merriam Park: Preserving the pedestrian environment is critical. Additional parking for existing businesses will only be approved if it will qualitatively improve the neighborhood. I've also been thinking about 1170 Selby in the light two recent appeals before the City Council and some of the "anti business" criticism that has ensued. The first, 650 Pelham, was properly decided. Even though that development did not require any variances, it is reasonable to ask a developer to create a site plan that is respectful of the pedestrian realm when that request does not cause undo hardship on the developer. Simple changes that site the building closer to the street, enhance the appearance of the facade, increase the buildings transparency, and move the bulk of parking to the rear are good design principles, especially for a street that is anticipated to bring many riders to Central Corridor LRT. I believe that in the second, Cupcake on Grand Avenue, the City Council may have erred. If a business believes it can succeed without the required number of off-street parking spaces, and there is no land available to build that parking due to existing development, I think it's prudent to let that business make a go of it. Free and abundant parking is one of the drivers of automobile dependence. When it is subsidized by cash register receipts, as is done by most businesses, it amounts to a tax on all customers including those who arrive by walking, biking, and transit. Our shared goal of transitioning to a transportation system more reliant on the sustainable modes will be reached more quickly if we provide no more parking than is absolutely necessary and insure that the true and full cost of that parking is born by those who utilize it. Pizza Luce currently has all the parking it is required to have. It is a successful business. Among all of its locations, I understand that Selby is the second most profitable. This seems an ideal time to further build a local and loyal customer base that is rewarded for walking, biking, and busing. LexHam is a neighborhood that warmly welcomes visitors to its parks, schools, and churches. It also welcomes businesses that fit the scale of the neighborhood and their customers. But like all neighborhoods, it wants to minimize the burden of motor vehicle traffic for reasons we all understand; noise, pollution, and the hazard it poses to people outside of cars. I ask you to please support the appeal and deny the variances required for the proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby. I believe there are alternative uses for the site that can benefit Pizza Luce from a business standpoint and also be embraced by the neighborhood. Thank you, Mike Madden Dear Councilman Carter: I am writing in opposition to the variance request for 1170 Selby. Although it would be convenient for me personally to have another parking lot so close to my home (I have no off-street parking), the impact of the current Pizza Luce parking lot has been so negative that I cannot support and strongly object to a second one. The existing, small and inaccessible lot has created a dangerous situation on that block of Selby because of cars backing out, cars waiting to park, and cars threatening the safety of pedestrians – particularly on weekend nights. Having another back-out only lot so close to the entrance of the first one would significantly more than double the potential for harm. Thank you for your time and attention. Deborah Durkin 1163 Hague Ave St. Paul Dear Councilmembers Carter, Stark, Bostrom, Brendmoen, Lantry, Tolbert and Thune, Please oppose the 1170 Selby Avenue parking lot variances. These variances are contrary to principals outlinde in the City's Comprehensive Plan to • Minimize and consolidate driveway curb cuts on commercial streets as opportunities arise, for pedestrian safety and comfort and to maximize on- street parking. • Promote walkability and transit use, as well as seeking to fund traffic calming measures. • Discourage new and expanded auto-oriented uses, while instead prioritizing the development of compact commercial areas accessible by pedestrians and transit users over commercial areas more readily accessed by automobile. An overwhelming majority of residents living adjacent to and near 1170 Selby oppose this parking lot, especially because of safety issues. Pizza Luce does not need this parking lot to meet it's current parking requirement. For these reasons, we ask you to oppose these parking variances. Debbie Meister and Gene Christenson 1312 Portland Avenue, 55104 651.647.6816 Hello, my name is Andrew Faltesek, a homeowner at 1197 Hague Avenue since 1990. I wanted to relay to you my concerns about the proposed 2nd parking lot at 1170 Selby Ave. for Pizza Luce. Please accept this preface to my comments with two statements. First; I was supportive of Pizza Luce opening in our location, as commercial development occurred and was supported mostly east of Lexington and west of Ayd Mill Road over the years. Pizza Luce was a welcome and positive addition to our neighborhood in its original format. Second; the true renaissance of our neighborhood through various issues was accomplished by the involvement and hard work of the wonderful families I am blessed to count as my neighbors; and as is evident; we are a close, numerous, and unified group. Included below are relevant issues that are in opposition to us not only as a neighborhood, but also to stated objectives by the City of Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, as underscored by the excellent work by our neighbors; after my own personal concerns about the parking lot variance request and the responsibilities of both Union Park District Council and Lexington-Hamline Community Council. While I understand that private businesses are not required to telegraph their business plans, increase of profit, or expansions; and may well conform to procedural requirements for development or variance requests; in the case of this 2nd parking lot and variances, the concerns of the neighborhood residents that might be affected was never addressed until the last moment. Pizza Luce’s own Marketing Strategy includes only one real point of working with neighborhoods: Point 5.: “We will work closely with neighborhood associations, schools, colleges, hospitals, arts organizations, and the food co-ops to stimulate word-of-mouth advertising.” The vetting of concerns by affected residents was not attempted outside of the variance notification. Notice for the UPDC variance meeting was delivered 10 days prior to the December 27th event. I cannot say what you might have been doing ten days before or two days after Christmas, but this date was assuredly predisposed to minimal involvement...I’m not assigning blame; just pointing out practical reality. Many neighbors had no idea of developments until the residence at 1170 was being demolished. Since then a clear unity and voice has risen from the neighborhood...I paraphrase: “ We do not want this parking lot, and despite all suggestions and alternate options offered, Pizza Luce and UPDC support the lot and variance.” Opposition to the lot has been characterized as being in “opposition to neighborhood sustainability/livability, commerce, etc.”; but I can assure you that we as homeowners are very aware and committed to retaining the character and future of our block. In my 22 years here, we as neighbors have continually improved and solidified our unity and collaborated on issues as diverse as Lex-Ham co-op housing problems; drugs; to even continually treating the mammoth elm tree at 1199 for Dutch Elm disease at our own significant cost. We are communicative and in agreement. My own concerns about the process are: the procedural timeline and efforts to actually discern concerns of affected homeowners. Real estate was purchased, plans laid, organizations consulted, and decisions made; many months before homeowners had any knowledge. I would hope, as I understand by the mission statements of UPDC, Lex-Ham, and City of Saint Paul; that neighborhood/homeowner concerns would be addressed at the initiation of this sort of proposal, not after the fact. The parking lot as proposed only multiplies by two; the problems and concerns we as a neighborhood have voiced. It seems that our alternate proposals are to be rejected. UPDC seems to be more worried about admitting to procedural mistakes than addressing homeowners concerns. I have but little input or control to the decisions made by the individuals promoting this parking lot, but hope ultimately, that you...Melvin Carter; and the Saint Paul City Council, will respond to the desires of its constituency; and stop the proposed parking lot at 1170 Hague Avenue. Most sincerely; Andrew J. Faltesek, 1197 Hague Avenue I am opposed to the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property because the lot will create an inherently unsafe parking space for our neighborhood, as it is a mirror image of the existing parking lot next to Pizza Luce, a lot I know is hazardous. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan seeks to minimize and consolidate driveway curb cuts on commercial streets as opportunities arise. For pedestrian safety and comfort and to maximize on-street parking (1.7). I am opposed to the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property because the lot will create more moving traffic in our neighborhood. Creating addition surface parking, invites and therefore increases traffic on Selby. Increased automobile traffic means less safety for pedestrians, bikers and transit users. This goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan goals which promotes walkability and transit use, as well as seeking to fund traffic calming measures (2.2 and 4.11). I am opposed to the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property because adding more surface parking goes against the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan. The plan discourages new and expanded auto- oriented uses as it seeks to prioritize the development of compact commercial areas accessible by pedestrians and transit users over commercial areas more readily accessed by automobile (1.52). I am opposed to the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property because this opens the doors for future expansion of Pizza Luce. Pizza Luce is planning to add a patio to their Selby location becoming a business that is not scaled to our neighborhood. A patio also means more need for parking. This is not congruent with the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan as it seeks to: Establish boundaries for Mixed-Use Corridors to guide development activity, monitor growth and other development conditions and evaluate performance toward meeting objectives for providing services (1.22). Dear City Council member, I am opposing the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property because the lot will create more moving traffic in our neighborhood. Creating additional surface parking invites and therefore increases traffic on Selby. Increased automobile traffic means less safety for pedestrians, bikers and transit users. This goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan goals which promotes walkability and transit use, as well as seeking to fund traffic calming measures (2.2 and 4.11). Sincerely, Katie Bratsch 671 Ashland Ave., St. Paul To Whom it may Concern-- Echoing Mr Madden's letter regarding Luce's end-run around established norms when seeking to further support car-culture at the expense of encouragement of more friendly travel via 2-wheels or 2-feet; I'd also like to add that I looked at the now-flattened space in question for moving my 35-year old business into, but was dismayed when I learned it had been bought by Luce across Selby. I expected perhaps another eatery to ape their success across the way or some other interesting and complimentary business. Imagine my shock Cycling by and seeing the beautiful old storefront gone, and my horror to see it turned into a parking lot! The boldfaced flouting of regulation, to say nothing of the elimination of another (!) resource for the neighborhood or the city of Saint Paul for a pandering parking lot? I have watched my beloved Uptown in Minneapolis transition from a neighborhood business node with funky small-businesses (like mine) and a walking (and Cycling) culture, to a "destination" shopping-area with big-box stores and ever-present traffic doing what traffic does best: marginalizing Bikes, relegating them to the periphery, as well as Pedestrians who're encouraged to stay just long enough to spend their money and then get back in their cars and go home to their neighborhoods. Isn't this what we value about Saint Paul? The Neighborhoods that encourage folksy interaction, down on the street, in slow-motion? The building is gone, don't add insult to injury by letting this ugly scar mark what once was an opportunity, rather mark it as a memorial by making it a small park with some Art, or Bicycle parking, or letting a Neighborhood Group plant flowers or topiary. But a(nother) parking lot? Is that the best we can do? Really? --Chris Büdel City of St. Paul 1170 Selby Variance Notification List Name1 Name2 St. #Street Oppose Support Petition/ Letter Naureen Turner 1160 Dayton Janet Lotzer 1166 Dayton O P&L C. Parker & HeatherStaley*1170 Dayton O P Walter Jirik 1184 Dayton O P Vernon Harms*1178 Dayton O P Mitchell Grengs 1188 Dayton David & EllenTzeutschler 1192 Dayton Randolph & AnnPark 1194 Dayton Richard Zajac 1198 Dayton O P Subhash Vidyarthi Trust 1204 Dayton O P Andrew/Jim Nelson 1209 Selby O P Dale & GalenNelson 1209 Selby Charles & SuzanneDoerr 1205 Selby O P Mark DunlopCatherine Hanson 1201 Selby O P Justin SelbitschkaLaurel Goodman 1197 Selby O P Jbb Properties 1193 Selby Susan & Chris HoehnCasa Grp 1179 Selby S L David Boquist 1177 Selby Ray Bro Inc 1171 Selby Krengel Propp 1161 Selby Dan & Linda Harms*1148 Dayton O P Ron & CourtneyRoberts 1150 Dayton Gary & Eunice Smith 1156 Dayton O P St. P & ISD 625 1157 Selby Tim Ward*1153 Selby O P Ben Thomas 1149 Selby Wade Carr 1145 Selby O P Brent WeigeltDalma Martinovic 1141 Selby John & Barb Taylor 1140 Selby Gary Thomas*1142 Selby O P Jeanne DimeglioRussell Rathbun 1148 Selby O P Y Express 1150 Selby Doug Nelson 1157 Hague Louella Pittman 1153 Hague Geo & Lisa Charlton 1149 Hague Xavier Demello 1145 Hague Andrew & Teri Remke 1141 Hague Thomas Gallagher 1168 Selby S L Jbb Prop 1170 Selby Wm Bush Moira Lynch 1174 Selby O L Levine Randle 1180 Selby O P Elliot Olde 1182 Selby City of St. Paul 1170 Selby Variance Notification List Janis Smiley Marjean Leary 1188 Selby O P Nicole Bloomquist 1190 Selby O P Melissa& FranKiemde 1196 Selby Richard Palmquist 1200 Selby O P Sushil Rana 1204 Selby Adi Molvin 1208 Selby Margaret Ryan 1209 Hague Dan & Judy Gabriel 1205 Hague David & Eliz Woodland 1201 Hague O P Andrew FaltesekAnn Fox 1197 Hague O Jayne & Wm Sillman 1193 Hague O P Maureen & TommyOlson 1189 Hague O P Josh Oneil Ken Odoyle 1177 Hague John & BettineHermanson 1173 Hague O L&P John & AmaliaMueller 1169 Hague Deborah Durkin 1163 Hague Jeanne & JasonGeonvese 139 Dunlap Tim FinneganMoira Sweeney 1168 Hague Duane & JeannePerry 1172 Hague O P Stephen FaltasekRebecca Mcnally 1176 Hague John & SuzettPeterson 1180 Hague O P Leben & JulianaMccormick 1184 Hague Mary Hannula 1192 Hague Brent & RachelleThomson*1196 Hague O L&P Ken & Helen Hermann 1200 Hague Paul Slattery 1204 Hague O L&P Joe & Bev Perry 1193 Laurel M & S Dovre Wudali 1189 Laurel O L Erik Nelson Joanna Vossen 1185 Laurel Heidi Losleben 1181 Laurel Francis & MargotGalt 1177 Laurel O P Maxwell CoraKimberly Hall 1173 Laurel Jeff Nelson Alisa Blackwood 1167 Laurel Glenn & Lea Sherer 1163 Laurel Mary JohnstonPhillip Harper*1148 Hague O P Ben Shakal Tho Waltman 1150 Hague Wm Strub Marie Michel 1156 Hague O P Cliff & Eliz Skagen 1157 Hague Mary Blatherwick 1157 Hague Michael GoergenJen Knudson 1185 Hague O P Stacey GrenzNathan Meath 1181 Hague Dominic Berstson 1186 Hague Jbb Prop 1183 Selby *Non owner City of St. Paul 1170 Selby Variance Notification List Attended 1/10 &/or 1/31 Mtgs 10-Jan 1/10 & 1/31 1/10 & 1/31 10-Jan 31-Jan 1/10 & 1/31 10-Jan 31-Jan 31-Jan Teslow #12 1/10 1/10 & 1/31 31-Jan City of St. Paul 1170 Selby Variance Notification List 10-Jan 10-Jan 1/10 & 1/31 1/10 & 1/31 10-Jan 10-Jan 1170 Selby Variance Non-Notification List Name1 Name2 St. #Street Oppose Support Petition/ Letter Attended 1/10 &/or 1/31 Mtgs Dear Council Member Melvin Carter, Here are the reasons why I oppose the variance requests for 1170 Selby Avenue: The lot will create an inherently unsafe parking space for our neighborhood, as it is a mirror image of the existing parking lot next to Pizza Luce, a lot we know is hazardous. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan seeks to minimize and consolidate driveway curb cuts on commercial streets as opportunities arise. For pedestrian safety and comfort and to maximize on-street parking (1.7). The lot will create more moving traffic in our neighborhood. Creating addition surface parking, invites and therefore increases traffic on Selby. Increased automobile traffic means less safety for pedestrians, bikers and transit users. This goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan goals which promotes walkability and transit use, as well as seeking to fund traffic calming measures (2.2 and 4.11). Adding more surface parking goes against the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan. The plan discourages new and expanded auto-oriented uses as it seeks to prioritize the development of compact commercial areas accessible by pedestrians and transit users over commercial areas more readily accessed by automobile (1.52). I really hope you take the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan into consideration when making your decision. As you can tell, the lot and the variance requests go against the essence in the comprehensive plan (and the law) which is created to work towards a healthier St. Paul. Again, Pizza Luce continues to state that they have the required off-street parking, and they are in no need of additional off-street parking. The neighborhood at large (through all the emails and letters you are receiving in opposition) is against this lot, as it is NOT needed nor beneficial to the neighborhood as a whole. On the contrary, it will decrease safety and livability for all of us! Thank you for your consideration. John Hermanson Dear Councilperson Carter and all Council members, I am writing to express my opposition to approving the variance requested by Pizza Luce to create a second parking lot, at 1170 Selby Ave, for their restaurant. I live at 1188 Selby Ave across the street from Pizza Luce. Luce is in many ways a positive addition to our neighborhood however the scale of their operation, and their plans for growth, is not in keeping with our surrounding residential area. My concerns are multiple. Most importantly are my safety concerns for both pedestrians and cars. Congestion and accidents on the 110 block of Selby have significantly increased since Pizza Luce entered the neighborhood. Adding another parking lot, both of which would have "backing out" traffic, will only worsen the situation. I prefer the safety of using street parking to the "tourniquet" effect of these 2 parking lots only a short distance from one another. An additional parking lot will only bring more hazards to our neighborhood. In addition, it will support further growth of Pizza Luce which is already out-sized for our mixed use area and far from a "neighborhood" meeting place. Finally, the plan is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan of Saint Paul. Please vote in favor of the appeal tomorrow that is before you and rescind the variance approval. Many thanks for your time, Marjean Leary 1188 Selby Ave Saint Paul, Mn Dear Mr. Carter and council members, Thank you for allowing more time to evaluate the variances granted for a second parking lot planned by Pizza Luce at 1170 Selby Avenue and giving us another opportunity to state our position. Here are a few reasons I am opposed to the variances: 1) Pizza Luce already has an unsafe parking lot adjacent to its building, a lot so narrow that cars must back out onto Selby, creating traffic jams and significantly stopping the traffic flow on Selby. The proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby would be the same thing, possibly more unsafe than the existing parking lot across the street, again a one entrance/exit lot so narrow that backing out is the only way out. Additionally, the sight lines would be obscured to pedestrians in these backing out maneuvers, making this a very dangerous situation to pedestrians. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Strategy 1.7, has the goal of seeking to minimize and consolidate driveway curb cuts on commercial streets as opportunities arise for pedestrian safety and comfort. Denying the variances would be an opportunity to adhere to this goal. 2) The current infrastructure in place for Pizza Luce is sufficient. Pizza Luce states they have no need for this second lot, that they have the required on and off-street parking. Through their own admission, this proposed lot is unnecessary. And my own observations of Selby and my block also attest to the fact that there is enough on-street parking and no need for this proposed lot. On-street parking is desirable. A parking lot, especially one as unsafe as this one, goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Strategy 1.7, the goal is to maximize on- street parking and 1.52, Prioritize the development of compact commercial areas accessible by pedestrians and transit users over commercial areas more readily accessed by automobile. Discourage new and expanded auto-oriented uses. 3) As a life-long St. Paulite and 30-year homeowner in the LexHam neighborhood I value the mix of residences and businesses I can walk to. Historically, the neighborhood has had non- expanding, low impact/low volume businesses very much like the yoga studio and the hair salon that exist now in the store fronts of the apartment building on the corner of the block, an excellent example of mixed-use development. At the other corner building is the Express Yourself Clothing store, a clothing exchange business that is also an urban internship program for young people from our community who learn the operation of a small business and a bike shop. These successful businesses fit the scale of the neighborhood and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. I want the businesses in our neighborhood to be successful and Pizza Luce is certainly that. The Selby Pizza Luce is the second most profitable of their 6 and soon to be 7 establishments. But their expansionist actions, as seen in their Business Plan, metro-wide advertising, attempts to get a patio and liquor licenses despite zoning restrictions and neighborhood objections, purchasing the home next door with intentions of removing it and now tearing down an 80-year old reusable zoned business building seems to be out-of-scale development for our neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan calls for considering the scale of development in Land Use Strategy 1.12 , 1.21 &1.22., Establish boundaries for Mixed-Use Corridors to guide development activity, monitor growth and other development conditions, and evaluate performance toward meeting objectives for providing services. I ask you to please support the appeal and deny the variances required for the proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby. I believe our objection regarding a second parking lot is in complete alignment with the City of Saint Paul’s Comprehensive Plan. Janet Lotzer- 1168 Dayton Ave Council Member Melvin Carter, Here are both PERSONAL and FORMAL statements: I enjoyed meeting you this past fall, talking about social work as a profession, and meeting your daughters. Regardless of what happens this afternoon, I do trust that you are considering all aspects of the difficult situation. I initially participated with the group called SOS, and from this point on will likely consider myself part of this group. I am one who likes to stand back, listen, and then provide input at the end of discussion - being leader of 2 teams at my school and having been on my church council for 4 years. This approach is one of my strengths. MY PERSONAL STATEMENT - 2 POINTS 1. NEIGHBORHOOD CUSTOMER BASE: I supported Pizza Luce for the past 6 years, and aside from this serious issue, I still want to support Pizza Luce. I no longer trust Pizza Luce, and that is a distinction. Dozens of us feel this way and simply feel negative and until this issue is resolved will not eat there. This is not intended as a threat, it is just how we are feeling. This is not good for business and the relationship between a large corporate Minneapolis based business and we who Saint Paul residents. 2. SAFETY: I ride the bus system everywhere (for the past 3.5 years). I have spent dozens of cumulative hours watching. The design of the current lot, mirrors the design this variance would make possible across the street. It is a log jam effect, that far outweighs any benefit a small number of parking spaces theoretically would have. I can attest to the lack of safety at the current parking lot adjacent to Pizza Luce's building. Here are the specific behaviors of drivers that can not be disputed: a. Customers and Pizza Luce Drivers double parking - often making the 21 stop. b. Drivers pulling in, then stuck, and then stopping mid-street, because there is no turn- around. c. Drivers backing out with limited vision. d. Drivers using private driveways for drop offs for 3-point turns. I have this week re-connected with the group Save Our Selby. I have independently read and considered the statement that follows. I DO PERSONALLY OPPOSE THE VARIANCES GRANTED AT 1170 SELBY: FORMAL STATEMENT: Many neighbors have read the Board of Zoning Appeals staff report. There are concerns about the lack of serious consideration of the impact of the 1170 Selby Avenue variances on the avenue itself and the surrounding neighborhood. We dispute the conclusions from this report particularly finding number 2, “The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The BZA report’s conclusion in this paragraph is two simple declarative statements. The comprehensive plan is a complex document that was built on multiple precepts and principles regarding future urban development. The groundwork of this guiding document involved many disciplines, enormous amounts of time, energy, research and cost by professionals and committee persons. The Comprehensive Plan has an incredible magnitude of impact within our neighborhoods and the hopes for positive future growth and development of our city. Should there not be some expected logical development of the conclusion in finding number two other than the simple declarative statement made? Any report should have the methodology used in the analysis or search of expected outcomes, the metrics used to measure these. The details of the investigation should allow the replication of any conclusions by others. This assures that the conclusion(s) is sound and supported. Without solid measures and the ability to reproduce the same logic, conclusions have the suspicion of mere casual observation or opinion, lacking depth and substantiation. At the very least there should be an accounting for the rationale supporting the conclusion. Since the public notice was served regarding 1170 Selby Avenue, we have gathered and studied information from various materials and have spoken with urban design persons regarding the precepts and principles grounding the Comprehensive Plan. We feel that the conclusion in the Board of Zoning staff report regarding the Comprehensive Plan is lacking substance and argument and hence unconvincing. In particular we question, in varying degrees, the following policy numbers: 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.17, 1.21, 1.22, 1.45, 1.46, 1.51, 1.52, 1.53, 1.7, 2.1, 2.5, 3.3, 4.11, 2.11, 3.10, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6. We believe that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy that can historically guide our communities and the city to exceptional and beneficial urban livability. For too many decades automobiles have dominated our cities causing immeasurable detriment to our cities. Please move Saint Paul toward a positive future for our citizens, and make it an example to other cities. Do not allow this infringement of the Comprehensive Plan to occur by granting the variances to 1170 Selby Avenue. BRANT THOMSEN 1196 HAGUE AVENUE (651)387-5976 Council Member Melvin Carter, My name is Rochelle, I run a daycare at 1196 Hague. The issue of variance granted for 1170 Selby is about safety in my view - it is not about disrespecting Pizza Luce. It is about an unclear and concerning political process in which I was never asked to have a voice. I have not participated in SOS, but recently I have been updated about their stand and I do agree. Here is how I am unique and why I OPPOSE the variances for 1170 Selby. As a resident, and very small business owner, I experience the effects of no alleyway. There is no way to turn or do pick ups through an ally. My clients, one time daily, back out or have to double park - Hague traffic volume is low. This would happen at 1170 Selby if variances are granted where traffic volume is high and high speed. Granting the variance at 1170 would mean INCREASED pull in and literally 'back out' traffic onto Selby. This already occurs at the building of Pizza Luce on the North side. On-street parking is NOT limited, and as a resident I would prefer Pizza Luce encourage this. A few parking spaces is not something Pizza Luce needs. Even parking and walking from Hague is a short, easy walk for customers already driving in from out of town. I have read and do understand the details of the following statement OPPOSING VARIANCES: Many neighbors have read the Board of Zoning Appeals staff report. There are concerns about the lack of serious consideration of the impact of the 1170 Selby Avenue variances on the avenue itself and the surrounding neighborhood. We dispute the conclusions from this report particularly finding number 2, “The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The BZA report’s conclusion in this paragraph is two simple declarative statements. The comprehensive plan is a complex document that was built on multiple precepts and principles regarding future urban development. The groundwork of this guiding document involved many disciplines, enormous amounts of time, energy, research and cost by professionals and committee persons. The Comprehensive Plan has an incredible magnitude of impact within our neighborhoods and the hopes for positive future growth and development of our city. Should there not be some expected logical development of the conclusion in finding number two other than the simple declarative statement made? Any report should have the methodology used in the analysis or search of expected outcomes, the metrics used to measure these. The details of the investigation should allow the replication of any conclusions by others. This assures that the conclusion(s) is sound and supported. Without solid measures and the ability to reproduce the same logic, conclusions have the suspicion of mere casual observation or opinion, lacking depth and substantiation. At the very least there should be an accounting for the rationale supporting the conclusion. Since the public notice was served regarding 1170 Selby Avenue, we have gathered and studied information from various materials and have spoken with urban design persons regarding the precepts and principles grounding the Comprehensive Plan. We feel that the conclusion in the Board of Zoning staff report regarding the Comprehensive Plan is lacking substance and argument and hence unconvincing. In particular we question, in varying degrees, the following policy numbers: 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.17, 1.21, 1.22, 1.45, 1.46, 1.51, 1.52, 1.53, 1.7, 2.1, 2.5, 3.3, 4.11, 2.11, 3.10, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6. We believe that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy that can historically guide our communities and the city to exceptional and beneficial urban livability. For too many decades automobiles have dominated our cities causing immeasurable detriment to our cities. Please move Saint Paul toward a positive future for our citizens, and make it an example to other cities. Do not allow this infringement of the Comprehensive Plan to occur by granting the variances to 1170 Selby Avenue. Rochelle Thomsen 1196 Hague Avenue (651)224-6884 Save Our Selby 3-13-12 Dear St. Paul City Council Members, I am opposing the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property because the lot will create more moving traffic in our neighborhood. Creating addition surface parking, invites and therefore increases traffic on Selby. Increased automobile traffic means less safety for pedestrians, bikers and transit users. This goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan goals which promotes walkability and transit use, as well as seeking to fund traffic calming measures (2.2 and 4.11). A concerned St. Paul neighbor, Kristen M. Johnson Dear Council Member Carter, Just picture this on Selby!!!! Imagine how the Selby community will shine! Inviting children from Youth Express, to learn new skills, develop an appreciation for team work, and experience pride in their efforts! All generations with a common goal! Pride in our neighborhood! Help us transform this lot! Stop this parking lot from happening! AnnMarie Fox 1197 Hague Dear Mr. Melvin Carter I am writing to you in regard to the proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby Ave. I know that you are now well aware of the potential dangers it will create on Selby. So then the question you have to ask yourself, do the benefits of eight off street parking spots out weight the negatives of not having a parking lot. And keep in mind, by not granting the parking lot it will have no effect on Pizza Luce profits what so ever from a business standpoint. But it will affect our property values, safety and right to privacy as a neighbor. By granting 1170 as a parking lot it will have a lasting adverse effect on my street because now the new parking lot will tie up both sides and cause people to back out( the DVD simulation of the parking lot in the morning by the neighbors is proof enough) in approximately the same spot on Selby causing a potential pedestrian and vehicular safety hazard. It is like going from one bad situation to a worse situation. And we know all to well, when people are put in bad situations bad things happen. Ultimately, if the variance is not granted, the lot still holds it's intrinsic value and can easily be sold with no monetary loss. I consider Selby not just any street but a very dynamic street of historic value and significance since the 1880's. It has at one end of it, one of the greatest structures ever built in America, The Cathedral of Saint Paul. This street has flourished in good vibrant years with entertainment and movie houses. But it has also seen some of St Paul's darkest years during the late 60's after Martin Luther King's death. We have lost hundreds of original old houses and buildings from west of Dale to Lexington and there are still numerous empty lots on both sides. My house was rented by the Saint Paul Housing Authority for ten years during all of the 70's. With the bad times behind us, we have certainly been on the mend since the 80's. So let us not forget the good families who moved in and stayed, endured and helped this diverse and historic street become the street we see today. It is a sad day to see another historic store front demolished on Selby for a parking lot that creates more problems than it's worth and advocates cars. You can never get these flat roofed big windowed store fronts back, they are an integral part of Selby's and St Paul's heritage. And we as good stewards of our street would never sacrifice one of these buildings for an unnecessary parking lot across the street two houses down for a bar/pizza restaurant. So my question is, why were we not notified by our community council when they became aware of it and so instrumental in it's demolition? And how many people from the community council live on this block and are directly affected by the negative impact Pizza Luce has made on our block? They spoke of neighborhood support, how can that be when we were not notified? We did not find out until the wrecking ball was taking down the building. What a shame and a great loss? This type of building was the future model for Saint Paul's Comprehensive Plan to get people from a mixed neighborhood to leave their cars and walk, bike, bus to a potential independent coffee shop, bistro, deli, gallery or what ever the imagination brings. The bottom line is it would have helped bring neighbors together to give a sense of community and pride to our street. Never in our wildest imagination would a 90 year old building become a parking lot. As good stewards of this street we have to make sure this never happens again. Smart growth never advocates a parking lot,instead it is a green space, like a garden with sitting benches for families or a children's park. Once again advocating a sense of community as a meeting place for neighbors. In conclusion this leads me to ask one more question, when does a business become too big for a neighborhood setting? Everything has a breaking point. When does the size of their business break our street? They have 50 people working there and 30 on a weekend night. Are they not treating our block as if it was in a strictly commercial district located in the warehouse district down town Minneapolis at their first location where there isn't a residential house for miles? And I just bet our location has just as many workers on the weekend and is just as profitable. Keep in mind there are 18 residential homes on this block and we are proud to say, "There are only two rentals." One is directly across Pizza Luce and the other is 4 feet to the east of the Pizza Luce. Pizza Luce owns a vacant house with a zero set back to their parking lot. They bought it from Debbie Strendhl who lived in it with her son for 16 years. Pizza Luce purchased it before they opened hoping to demolish the house and create a much bigger parking lot with a 24 or more seat patio. They have tried to rent it but no one stays long because their privacy is constantly violated due to their 2:30am closing. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do again at 1170? The variance has zero set back to the house on the west. To my knowledge Pizza Luce has never shown in their business practices any moderation or restraint and consider the families of the neighborhood they are infringing on. The only concession they gave us was to go from nine beer signs down to five neon beer signs. They explain us away by calling us bellyachers and nothing will make us happy. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is so counter productive to the real issue at hand. All we ask that you say what you mean and mean what you say. When they initially told us that they were going to be a small restaurant and had enough parking because most of their business was delivery and from the neighborhood by walking, we believed them and hold them to it, which is the sole reason they are here. I am held accountable for what I say and do every day. So why shouldn't we hold them to the same standards? Mr Carter, you will be faced with some tough decisions in the near future with regard to smart growth for the light rail on the Central Corridor . You play a very important role in how we are to adopt and implement the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Lets lead the way by not granting the variance for the parking lot because ultimately safety will be compromised and it contradicts the following: 1.7,2.2,4.11,1.52,and 1.22 of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. On behalf of Save our Selby. Channon Doerr Dear Council Member Carter, I am opposing the variance requests on the 1170 Selby Avenue property for these reasons: 1. The lot will create another inherently unsafe parking space for our neighborhood, as it is a mirror image of the existing parking lot next to Pizza Luce. As you know, the existing lot's scale and design has cars backing out into Selby Avenue, and cars waiting to park while stopping traffic flow on Selby. These cars threaten the safety of pedestrians. Having another back-out only lot so close to the entrance of the first one would significantly more than double the potential for harm. Also, this kind of parking lot goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan as it seeks to minimize and consolidate driveway curb cuts on commercial streets as opportunities arise. For pedestrian safety and comfort and to maximize on-street parking (1.7). 2. The lot will create more moving traffic in our neighborhood. Creating addition surface parking, invites and therefore increases traffic on Selby. Increased automobile traffic means less safety for pedestrians, bikers and transit users. This goes against the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan goals which promotes walkability and transit use, as well as seeking to fund traffic calming measures (2.2 and 4.11). 3. The lot will add more surface parking, and this goes against the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan. The plan discourages new and expanded auto-oriented uses as it seeks to prioritize the development of compact commercial areas accessible by pedestrians and transit users over commercial areas more readily accessed by automobile (1.52). 4. The lot will open the doors for future expansion of Pizza Luce. Pizza Luce is planning to add a patio to their Selby location becoming a business that is not scaled to our neighborhood. As of right now, Pizza Luce is a very successful business and has numerous times stated they have the required off-street parking. At this point Pizza Luce is scaled to our neighborhood, however a patio addition will mean more need for parking, and more traffic into our neighborhood. In addition the sound pollution, cigarette pollution and late night conversations will decrease the livability for our neighbors. Again this is not congruent with the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan as it seeks to establish establish boundaries for Mixed-Use Corridors to guide development activity, monitor growth and other development conditions and evaluate performance toward meeting objectives for providing services (1.22). I ask you to please support the appeal and deny the variances required for the proposed parking lot at 1170 Selby. I believe there are alternative uses for the site that can benefit Pizza Luce from a business standpoint and also be embraced by the neighborhood. And again, supporting the variance requests means you are not considering the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan which is created to guide your decisions. Bettine Hermanson 1173 Hague Avenue OPEN LETTER RE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES BY PIZZA LUCE 3/17/2012 To All Interested Parties, The Saint Paul City Council on March 14th, decided to again lay over our appeal of the variances for 1170 Selby Avenue until April 11th to allow more time for discussion. We welcome an open, frank dialogue with Pizza Luce, the Lexington-Hamline Community Council, the Union Park District Council, and all who wish to preserve and promote a safe and vibrant neighborhood community. To that end, we will consider any new proposal that 1.Does not compromise public safety; 2.Does not jeopardize the livability of our neighborhood; 3.Does not adversely affect the value of our homes and property; 4.Does not violate relevant State Law, and related court decisions; 5.Complies with Saint Paul City Ordinances; and, 6.Conforms to The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. We maintain our opposition, based on these guidelines,to the variances for 1170 Selby Avenue now be- fore the Saint Paul City Council. Nevertheless, as we value transparency, openness, and respect for those who honestly express their views and opinions, especially those who keep the welfare of our community foremost in mind, we look forward to any new, written proposal from Pizza Luce consistent with the letter and spirit of the guidelines enumerated above. Save Our Selby Dear Coucilmember: Subsequent to a recent meeting involving Pizza Luce and the neighborhood, hosted by Councilmember Carter, requesting alternatives to the use of 1170 Selby Avenue as a parking lot, another suggestion occurred to us after reading about the solution offered to Cupcakes. Like Cupcakes, why not encourage Pizza Luce to negotiate the use of one or more of the many "underutilized" lots already existing on Selby Avenue, as an alternative to building another unsafe parking lot? A Shuttle traversing a few blocks would, I predict, be cheaper for Pizza Luce than maintaining another lot across the street and would, I presume, be welcomed by their patrons. It would have the added benefit of reducing the traffic activity and congestion on Selby between Dunlap and Griggs and encourage consumers to patronize additional businesses in the area. Eunice Smith 1156 Dayton Avenue Saint Paul MN 55104 651-366-2430 // Chamber of Commerce Center // 401 North Robert Street, Suite 150 // Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 April 10, 2012 Councilmember Melvin Carter III 310-A City Hall 15 Kellogg Blvd., West Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Pizza Luce Parking Lot Dear Councilmember Carter, Over the past six months Saint Paul has made a lot of news about planned business expansions within its borders. Signs of an expanding business base is usually a pleasing signal of a city’s growth and vitality, yet the stories here in Saint Paul have focused on the small but vocal opposition that have brought barriers to such expansion and growth. Such is the case of the Pizza Luce’s proposed parking expansion on Selby Avenue. Here we have a scenario that is almost absurdly the exact reverse situation to the Cupcake dilemma faced not more than one week ago. In this case, a thriving neighborh ood business has purchased a small lot to create additional parking spaces to please neighbors and move customers’ cars off of neighborhood streets. The lot is currently zoned for the proposed use, a parking lot, but does require two setback variances to proceed. The variances have been approved by the district council and the Board of Zoning Appeals, but a small group of residents have appealed the decision. It is clear from the Council’s actions last week in dealing with the Cupcake parking situation th at members are both willing and able to work with business owners and residents to find ways to allow small business growth in Saint Paul. The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce is very supportive of this approach and hopes that similar consideration will be given to Pizza Luce’s request in order to preserve and promote a business friendly reputation for Saint Paul. Sincerely, Zach Schwartz Manager Public Affairs Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce cc Council President Kathy Lantry Councilmember Dan Bostrom Councilmember Amy Brendmoen Councilmember Russ Stark Councilmember Dave Thune Councilmember Chris Tolbert Dear Councilmember Carter, I am writing to you in support of Pizza Luce and their intended/proposed parking area located on the south side of Selby Avenue. Shortly after this Selby Avenue building was posted as an Auction sale, I contacted the selling representative and scheduled a walk-through. I had an open mind when I arrived at the property because the Selby Avenue exterior view offered potential for my business expansion to that location. I was shocked by the condition of the property. During the walk-through I noted the smell of decay from rat carcasses decomposing on the floor, a crumbling foundation, a large gaping hole adjacent to the rear entrance, deteriorating parking surface and fencing, as well as other structural and cosmetic problems. At the conclusion of the walk-through I stated the only thing that can save this property is bring in a bulldozer and put up a parking lot. It should be noted that for several months this property was vacant and listed before Pizza Luce made the purchase. I would like to thank Pizza Luce for purchasing this property and eliminating this hazard from our neighborhood! Pizza Luce is a great neighbor and I kindly ask the City Council to support their south-side parking area. Sincerely, Susan Diekrager 1233 Laurel Avenue St Paul, MN 55104 City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1Ord 12-18 Name:Ordinance Amending Chapter 344 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to Update and Clarify the Pawn Shop Ordinance Status:Type:Ordinance Final Adoption In control:City Council Final action: Title:Amending Chapter 344 of the Legislative Code to update and clarify the Pawn Shop Ordinance. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/4/2012 1 City Council3/28/2012 1 City Council3/21/2012 1 Title Amending Chapter 344 of the Legislative Code to update and clarify the Pawn Shop Ordinance. Body THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1 Section 344.02 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 344.02. - Fees. (a) The fee required for a license defined under this chapter shall be established by ordinance as provided in section 310.09(b) of the Legislative Code. (b) The billable transaction fee shall reflect the cost of processing transactions as determined by the director of the department of safety and inspections (hereafter, in this chapter, "director") and the chief of police (hereafter, in this chapter, "chief") or their designees. These fees shall be established by ordinance as provided in section 310.09(b) of the Legislative Code. The billable transaction fee shall be required of all licensees as defined under this chapter except: (1) If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports via modem, the licensee must provide the police department printed copies of all reportable transactions along with the videotape(s) for that date, by twelve o'clock noon (12:00) the next business day, and must be charged for billable transactions at a rate to be determined by the automated pawn system (hereafter, in this chapter, "APS") for manual processing. (2) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not corrected by the close of the first City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 business day following the failure, the licensee must provide the required reports as detailed in section 344.04 (a), and may do so for up to ten (10) consecutive days without penalty. However, after the tenth day, if the licensee still cannot report via modem, the licensee may, at the discretion of the director and the chief, be fined one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day not to exceed twenty (20) days. If the licensee cannot report via modem after thirty (30) days from the first date of failure, the license may be revoked. (3) If the problem is determined to be outside the licensee's system, the licensee must provide the required reports as detailed in section 344.04(a), and will be charged for billable transactions until the error is corrected. If the regulatory agency is unable to collect the required data via modem, no additional charges will be assessed against the pawnbroker. (4) The licensee who has consistently reported via modem, and is unable to capture, digitize, or transmit the photographs as required under section 344.04(a)344.04(c), must immediately take all required photographs with a still camera, immediately develop the pictures, cross reference the photographs to the correct transaction, and deliver them to the police department by twelve o'clock noon (12:00) on the next business day. Such failures shall follow the same time lines and presume the same penalties as identified in section 344.02(b)(2). (5) The director, in conjunction with the chief, upon presentation of extenuating circumstances, may extend the grace period for a qualifying licensee beyond ten (10) days or may extend the penalty beyond twenty (20) days, notwithstanding other provisions as outlined in section 344.02. (c) Licensees shall be notified in writing at least thirty (30) days before any fee adjustment is implemented. Billable transaction fees shall be billed monthly and are due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation of this chapter and may result in the following actions: (1) Fees due past thirty (30) days may result in up to a two-hundred-fifty-dollar fine. (2) Fees due past sixty (60) days may result in up to a five-hundred-dollar fine. (3) Fees due past ninety (90) days may result in a license suspension. (4) Fees due past one hundred twenty (120) days may result in a license revocation. (5) Any and all adverse actions taken against licensees and their licenses as defined in this chapter shall be ordered by the city council and implemented by the department of safety and inspections. All judgments made by the city council shall be final. (d) Any applicant for a new license under this chapter shall be required to deposit a fee established by ordinance as specified in section 310.09(b) of the Legislative Code to the department of safety and inspections at the time of original application. Such deposit shall be used to cover the cost of application verification and any additional expense associated with investigations performed to assure compliance with this chapter. If, however, the costs of investigations exceed the original deposit, the department of safety and inspections may recover the actual investigation costs not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). SECTION 2 Section 344.04 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 344.04. - Regulations. (a) Records. Every person engaged and licensed in the business of pawnbroker shall record all purchases or City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 pawn transactions on a standard three-part form furnished by the Saint Paul Police Department, hereafter referred to as a pawn or buy form. One (1) copy shall be maintained at the place of business. The other two (2) shall be delivered to the Saint Paul Police Department according to section 344.04(b) of the Legislative Code. All pawn tickets shall be completed, legibly written in ink in the English language, at the time any loan or purchase is made, and will include the following information: (1) The date and time that all such loans and/or purchases are made. (2) An accurate description of any person pawning, selling or leaving any type of property on deposit as a collateral security. Such description shall include, but not be limited to, the person's full name; date of birth; residence; physical description, including, but not limited to, sex, height, weight, color of eyes and color of hair; and the identification number from any of the following forms of identification of the persons pawning or selling the property: valid driver's license containing a picture or Minnesota identification card. (3) The full description of all such property purchased by the licensee or property received on deposit as collateral security, including the manufacturer's serial number or identifying insignia, if applicable, and the amount of purchase money or the amount loaned. (4) All forms shall be signed by such person and initialed by the clerk or agent for the business. (5) Entries on such forms shall not be erased, obliterated or defaced in any manner and shall be, at all reasonable times, open to inspection by the chief of police or any member of the police department or the department of safety and inspections. (6) Effective April 1, 1996, the licensee must also take a color photograph or color video recording of: a. Each customer involved in a billable transaction; and b. Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or affixed. If a photograph is taken, it must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2) inches in width and must be immediately developed and be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. Such photographs and/or video photographs must be available to the chief or the chief's designee upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include a front facial pose of the person who pawned or sold an item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform persons that they are being photographed and/or videotaped orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place. If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable closeup of that person's face. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so that they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee must keep the exposed photograph and/or videotape for at least four (4) months. (7) Effective sixty (60) days after the date of notification by the chief or the chief's designee, but no sooner than July 1, 1996, licensees must fulfill the forementioned color photograph requirements by submitting them as digital images, in a format specified by the issuing authority, electronically cross-referenced to the reportable transaction they are associated with. (8) The records must, at all times, be open to inspection by the department of safety and inspections or the police department. Entries must be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of transaction. Digitized images must be filed and kept electronically for a minimum of thirty (30) days. At all times during the terms of the license, the licensee must allow any representative of the department of safety and inspections and/or the City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 3 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 police department to enter the premises where the licensed business is located, including all off-site storage facilities as authorized in section 344.04(m), during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the items, wares, merchandise, and records therein to verify compliance with this chapter and other applicable laws. (b) Daily reports to police. The licensee or employee of the licensee shall complete a pawn or buy form, as required and furnished by the police department, for each transaction. Two (2) copies of such pawn or buy form shall be delivered to the chief or duly detailed officer by twelve o'clock noon (12:00) the first business day following the day of the transactions. The licensee must inform all patrons that all transactions are reported to the police department daily orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. Effective sixty (60) days from notification by the chief or the chief's designee, but no sooner than ninety (90) days after the license inspector provides licensees with computerized record standards, licensees must submit every reportable transaction to the police department daily in the following manner: (1) Licensees must provide to the police department the information required in section 344.04(a) by transferring it from their computer through APS to the police department via modem. All required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the issuing authority. (c) Receipts required. The licensee or agent of the licensee shall give to the person negotiating a loan or selling property a numbered, written or printed receipt for the property received for the loan or purchase. Such receipt shall correspond with the information on the pawn or buy forms. (d) Retention. The police department shall maintain the records turned over to them by the pawnshops for no less than six (6) months. Photographs must be retained for a minimum of thirty (30) days. (e) Ninety-day redemption period. Any person pledging, pawning or depositing an article for security shall have a minimum of ninety (90) days from the date when the loan or pledge was originated or renewed to redeem the same before the same becomes forfeitable. No personal property pawned or left on deposit with any person licensed under the terms hereof shall be permitted to be redeemed from the place of business for a period of seventy-two (72) hours, excluding Sundays and holidays. Licensees are prohibited from redeeming any item to anyone other than the person to whom a receipt was issued unless: (1) Such person has written approval of the chief or the chief's designee; or (2) Such person is identified in a written and notarized designation of that person's interest in the property identified in the receipt; or (3) In the event of the death of the person to whom the receipt was issued, by a person presenting a receipt, proper identification as required under section 344.04(a), and a certified copy of such a person's death certificate. (f) Property purchased. Property purchased by the licensee shall be recorded in the same manner as items pawned or left on deposit and such property shall not be sold within thirty (30) days following the date of transaction. Motor vehicles shall be exempt from this requirement. (g) Report of stolen or lost goods. If any goods, articles or things shall be advertised in any public newspaper of the City of Saint Paul as having been lost or stolen, and such goods, articles or things shall then be or shall thereafter come into the possession of any licensee under the terms hereof, such licensee shall, upon actual notice thereof, immediately thereafter notify the chief or duly detailed officer that certain goods, articles or things advertised are in the licensee's possession and shall not thereafter dispose of the same except upon written authority so to do from the chief or duly detailed officer. If probable cause exists that specific goods or City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 4 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 materials are stolen contraband or have been used in the commission of a crime and a representative of the police department notifies the licensee of such fact, the licensee shall not sell or permit to be sold, remove or permit to be removed, such goods and materials until such time as the licensee is notified by the chief or his or her representative. (h) Labels. Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is pawned, purchased or received in inventory from any reportable transaction. Permanently recorded on this label must be the number or name that identifies the transaction in the pawnshop's records, the transaction date, the name of the item, the model and serial number as they were reported to the police department, if applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can be sold, if applicable. The label must be of a type that can be attached to a variety of surfaces and remains easily removable, but of such construction that it may not be easily removed in one (1) piece. Labels shall not be reused. (i) Camera surveillance. Licensees shall be required to video tape all transactions and maintain a dated copy of the recording for thirty (30) days. The video recording shall include a clear view of the customer and shall display the date and time of the transaction. The video tape recordings shall be provided to the police or license inspector upon request. The foregoing requirements shall become effective as to each licensee, and remain in full force and effect thereafter as to each such licensee, when during any sixty-day period more than one (1) percent of all transactions shall involve stolen property. The term "transaction," for the purposes of this section shall mean the purchase or redemption of property, issuance of pawn tickets or other similar receipts, and all other pawn transactions between the licensee and any other person. Multiple transactions by one (1) member of the public, or transaction involving more than one (1) item of property by one (1) member of the public occurring on the same or successive days, shall be deemed to be one (1) transaction. The term "stolen property," for the purposes of this section shall mean and include any form of tangible property, as to which the owner or possessor of such property has made oral or written complaint to a law enforcement authority that such property has been stolen; provided, however, that there need not be proof of the crime of theft or other criminal offense nor the conviction of any person for theft or other criminal offense in order to establish that the property is stolen. The license inspector, or his or her successor, shall give notice to a licensee that the foregoing requirement for camera surveillance has become effective, and such licensee shall within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice begin to comply. Failure to comply after receipt of such notice shall be grounds for adverse action against such licensee. The licensee may dispute in any contested case hearing before an independent hearing examiner, on his or her failure to comply, the factual basis for the imposition of the foregoing camera surveillance requirement. This section shall be repealed effective sixty (60) days from the date of notification by the chief, but no sooner than April 1, 1996. (j) Burglar alarm. Licensees shall maintain an electronic burglar alarm system for the licensed premises. Such system must be duly licensed by the city and maintained in working order. Such system must also be centrally monitored and must be backed by a battery power source. (k) Investigative hold. Whenever a law enforcement official from any agency notifies a licensee not to sell an item via the APS, the item must not be sold or removed from the premises. The investigative hold shall remain in effect for fifteen (15) days from the date of initial notification, or until the investigative hold is canceled, or until an order to hold/confiscate is issued, whichever occurs first. (l) Order to hold/confiscate. Whenever the chief, or the chief's designee, or a licensed law enforcement official from another jurisdiction notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the chief, the chief's designee, or the licensed law enforcement official instituting the hold. The order to hold shall expire ninety (90) days from the date it is placed unless the chief or the chief's designee determines that the hold is still necessary and notifies the licensee in writing. If an item is identified as stolen or as evidence in a criminal case, the chief, the chief's designee, or a licensed law enforcement official from another jurisdiction may: (1) Physically confiscate it and remove it from the shop; City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 5 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 (2) Place the item on permanent hold and leave it in the shop; (3) Leave the item in the shop and authorize its release to the owner or an authorized person pursuant to the requirements of MN Stat. 609.523. When an item is confiscated, the person doing so shall provide identification upon request of the licensee, and shall provide the licensee the name and the phone number of the confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number related to the confiscation. When an order to hold/confiscate is no longer necessary, the chief, the chief's designee, or the licensed officer initiating the hold shall so notify the licensee. (m) Business at only one place. A license under this chapter authorizes the licensee to carry on its business only at the permanent place of business designated on the license. However, upon written request, the license inspector may approve an off-site locked and secured storage facility. The licensee shall permit inspection of the facility in accordance with section 344.04(a)(8). All provisions of this chapter regarding recordkeeping and reporting apply to the facility and its contents. Property shall be stored in compliance with all provisions of the City Legislative Code. The licensee must either own the building in which the business is conducted and any approved off-site storage facility, or have a lease on the business premises which extends for more than six (6) months. (a) Records Required. At the time of any reportable transaction other than renewals, extensions, or redemptions, every licensee must immediately record the following in a computerized record approved by the Police Department or the licensing inspector, or if the computer is temporarily unavailable in a book or journal which has page numbers that are preprinted and in an indelible ink, record the following information: (1) A complete and accurate description of each item as well as all of the following, if applicable: any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or any other unique identifying mark; (2) The date, time, and place the item of property was received by the licensee, and the unique transaction number that distinguishes it from all other transactions; (3) The full name, date of birth, residence address, and phone number of the person from whom the item was received; (4) An accurate physical description of the person from whom the item was received, including: sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes, and color of hair. If this information is transcribed from a photo ID there must be a notation that the information recorded actually matched the person from whom the item was received; (5) The identification number and state or country of issuance, as well as a legible photocopy of one of the following forms of identification of the seller: (i) current valid photo driver's license issued within the United States, (ii) current valid photo state identification card issued within the United States, (iii) current valid United States military photo identification card, or (iv) current valid passport. (6) The amount of money paid, loaned, or pledged therefore; (7) A list of all fees and charges which the transaction may be subject to; City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 6 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 (8) The last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold, and the amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on that date; (9) The unique identifier of the licensee or employee that conducted the transaction. (b) Daily Reports to Police. At the close of each business day, the licensee must provide the above records to the police department by transferring it from their computer to the automated pawn system (APS) via modem using the current version of the APS interchange file specification. All required records must be transmitted completely and accurately. Any transaction that does not meet the APS interchange file specification must be corrected and resubmitted the next business day. The licensee must inform all patrons, both orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises, that all transactions are reported to the police department daily. (c) Photographic Records. The licensee must also take a color video recording or digitally-captured photo image of the following: (1) Each customer involved in a reportable transaction; and, (2) Every item received that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or affixed. If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close-up of that person's face. Items photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. If a digital color photograph is taken it must be of sufficient quality resolution so that persons and items photographed are clearly identifiable. The major portion of the photograph must include an identifiable front facial close-up of the person who pawned or sold the item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. Further, the photographs must be maintained in such a manner as to be readily matched and correlated with all of the records of the transaction to which it relates. The licensee must inform the person that they are being photographed and/or videotaped by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. (d) Retention of Records. Data entries must be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of transaction. Photographs, videos, and digitized images must be retained for a minimum of ninety (90) days from the date of transaction. (e) Renewals, Extensions, and Redemptions. For renewals, extensions, and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, and the type of transaction. (f) Inspection of Records and Premises. At all times during the terms of the license, the licensee must allow any representative of the department of safety and inspections and/or the police department to enter the premises where the licensed business is located, including all off-site storage facilities as authorized in section 344.04 (p), during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting all items and records therein to verify compliance with this chapter and other applicable laws. (g) Labeling Required. Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is pawned, purchased or received in inventory from any reportable transaction. Permanently recorded on this label must be the number City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 7 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 or the name that identifies the transaction in the pawnshop's records, the transaction date, the name of the item, the model and serial number as they were reported to the police department, if applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can be sold, if applicable. The label must be of a type that can be attached to a variety of surfaces and remains easily removable, but of such construction that it may not be easily removed in one piece. Labels shall not be reused. (h) Receipts Required. Every licensee must provide a receipt to the party identified in every reportable transaction and must maintain a duplicate of that receipt for three (3) years. The receipt must include at least the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the licensed business. (2) The date and time the item was received by the licensee. (3) Whether the item was pawned or sold, or the nature of the transaction. (4) An accurate description of each item received including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on each item. (5) The signature or unique identifier of the licensee or employee who conducted the transaction. (6) The amount advanced or paid. (7) The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and charges. (8) If the item was pawned, the last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold, and the full amount necessary to redeem the item on that date. (9) The full name, current residence address, current telephone number, and date of birth of the pledger or seller. (10) The identification number and state or country of issuance from any of the following forms of identification of the pledger or seller: (i) current valid photo driver's license issued within the United States, (ii) current valid photo state identification card issued within the United States, (iii) current valid United States photo military identification card, or (iv) current valid passport. (11) Description of the pledger or seller including sex, race, color of eyes and hair, and approximate weight and height. (12) The statement "The pledger of this item attests that it is not stolen, it has no liens of encumbrances against it, and the pledger has the right to sell or pawn the item." (13) Signature and thumbprint of pledger or seller. (i) Report of Suspicious Items. No licensee shall receive or accept any item of property that contains an altered, obliterated, or obviously removed serial number or unique identifier, or any item that the licensee has reason to believe has been lost or stolen. Further, the licensee shall immediately report to the police department any attempt to sell, trade, or barter such items. If probable cause exists that specific items are stolen or have been used in the commission of a crime and a representative of the police department notifies City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 8 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 the licensee of such fact, the licensee shall not sell or permit to be sold, remove or permit to be removed, such items until such time as the licensee is notified by the chief or his or her representative. (j) Redemption Period. A person pledging, pawning, or depositing an item for security shall have a minimum of ninety (90) days from the date of that transaction or any renewal or extension, to redeem the item before it may be forfeited and sold. Licensees are prohibited from redeeming any item to anyone other than the person to whom the receipt was issued unless: (1) Such person has written approval of the chief of police or the chief's designee; or (2) Such person is identified in a written and notarized designation of that person's interest in the property identified in the receipt; or (3) In the event of the death of the person to whom the receipt was issued, by a person presenting a receipt with proper identification as required under section 344.04(a), and a certified copy of such person's death certificate. (k) Nonredemption. A pledger shall have no obligation to redeem pledged goods or make any payment on a pawn transaction. Pledged goods not redeemed within ninety (90) days of the date of the pawn transaction, renewal, or extension will automatically be forfeited to the pawnbroker, and qualified right, title, and interest in and to the goods shall automatically vest in the pawnbroker. (l) Risk of Loss. In the event pledged good are lost or damaged while in possession of the pawnbroker, the pawnbroker shall compensate the pledger, in cash or replacement of goods acceptable to the pledger, for the fair market value of the lost or damaged goods. Proof of compensation shall be a defense to any prosecution or civil action. (m) Holding Periods. Any item purchased or accepted in trade by a licensee must not be sold or otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days from the date of the transaction. Motor vehicles shall be exempt from this requirement. (n) Police Order to Hold/Confiscate. Whenever the chief of police, the chief's designee, or a licensed law enforcement official from another jurisdiction notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the chief, the chief's designee, or the licensed law enforcement official instituting the hold. The order to hold shall expire ninety (90) days from the date it is placed unless the chief, the chief's designee, or a licensed law enforcement official determines that the hold is still necessary and notifies the licensee in writing. If an item is identified as stolen or as evidence in a criminal case, the chief, the chief's designee, or a licensed law enforcement official from another jurisdiction may: (1) Physically confiscate and remove the item from the shop; (2) Place the item on permanent hold and leave it in the shop; (3) Leave the item in the shop and authorize its release to the owner or an authorized person pursuant to the requirements of MN Statute 609.523. When an item is confiscated, the person doing so shall provide identification to the licensee along with the name and phone number of the confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number related to the confiscation. When an order to hold/confiscate is no longer necessary, the chief, the chief's designee, or the licensed law enforcement official initiating the hold shall so notify the licensee. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 9 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 (o) Burglar Alarm. Licensees shall maintain an electronic burglar alarm system for the licensed premises. Such system must be duly licensed by the city and maintained in working order. Such system must also be centrally monitored and must be backed by a battery power source. (p) Business at Only One Place. A license under this chapter authorizes the licensee to carry on its business only at the permanent place of business designated on the license. However, upon written request, the license inspector may approve an off-site locked and secured storage facility. The licensee shall permit inspection of the facility in accordance with section 344.04(f). All provisions of this chapter regarding recordkeeping and reporting apply to the facility and its contents. Property shall be stored in compliance with all provisions of the City Legislative Code. The licensee must either own the building in which the business is conducted and any approved off-site storage facility, or have a lease on the business premises which extends for more than six (6) months. (q) Required Signage. A licensee must post adequate signage and separate written notice informing persons seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit goods with the licensee of the requirements of this Chapter. For the purpose of this subsection, "adequate signage" shall, at a minimum, mean at least one sign of not less than four (4) feet square in surface area, comprised of lettering not less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch in height, posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises and stating the following: TO PAWN OR SELL PROPERTY: YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE YOU MUST BE THE TRUE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THE PROPERTY MUST BE FREE OF ALL CLAIMS AND LIENS YOU MUST PRESENT VALID PHOTO IDENTIFICATION VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A CRIME ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED BY VIDEO ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE REPORTED TO POLICE DAILY For the purpose of this subsection, "separate written notice" shall be deemed to mean either the receipt, as required in section 344.04(h), or a printed form, incorporating a statement to the effect that the person pawning, pledging, selling, consigning, leaving, or depositing the article is at least 18 years of age; is the true owner of the article; and that the article is free of all claims and liens. The separate written notice must be signed by the person seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit the article with the licensee and the notice must be kept in the files of the licensee along with the other records of the transaction. SECTION 3 Section 344.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Coee is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 344.05. - Hours; minors. No person licensed under the terms of this chapter shall keep his office or store open for the transaction of business on any day of the week before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., nor shall any person licensed under the terms hereof purchase or receive personal property of any nature on deposit or pledge from any person under the age of eighteen (18), any person who appears under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, or mentally incompetent, or property which has the serial numbers or other identifying insignia which have been destroyed, altered, covered or defaced. Sec. 344.05 - Prohibited Acts City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 10 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 (a) Licensees. No licensee shall: (1) Receive any goods from a person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (2) Receive any goods from an intoxicated person or a person of unsound mind. (3) Receive any goods from a person unless the person presents valid identification as required by section 344.04(a)(5). (4) Receive any item of property that possesses an altered, obliterated, or removed serial number. (5) Knowingly possess stolen goods without contacting and reporting such to the police. (6) Purchase, accept, or receive an article of property from a person knowing, or having reason to know, that the person is not the true owner of the property; nor shall the licensee purchase, accept, or receive an article of property knowing, or having reason to know, that the article is encumbered by a security interest. (7) Sell pledged goods before the time to redeem has expired. (8) Keep the business open for the transaction of business on any day of the week before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (9) Lend money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law. (10) Make any false entry in the records of pawn transactions or use any pawn ticket not meeting the requirements of this chapter. (11) Falsify, obliterate, destroy, or remove from the place of business, the records, books, or accounts relating to the licensee's pawn transactions. (12) Refuse to allow a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor to inspect the pawn records or any pawn goods in the licensee's possession during the ordinary hours of business or at other times acceptable to both parties. (13) Fail to maintain a record of each pawn transaction for three (3) years. (14) Make any agreement requiring the personal liability of a pledger or seller, or waiving any provisions of this chapter, or providing for a maturity date less than ninety (90) days after the date of pawn. (15) Fail to return pledged goods to a pledger or seller, or provide compensation as provided in Minn. Stat. 325J.09, upon payment of the full amount due the pawnbroker unless either the date of redemption is more than sixty (60) days past the date of the pawn transaction, renewal, or extension and the pawnbroker has sold the pledged goods, or the pledged goods have been taken into custody by a court or a law enforcement officer or agency. (16) Sell or lease, or agree to sell or lease, pledged or purchased goods back to the pledger or seller in the same, or a related, transaction. (17) Sell or otherwise charge for insurance in connection with a pawn transaction. (18) Remove pledged goods from the pawnshop premises or other storage place approved by a municipality at any time before the expiration of the redemption period. However, a pawnbroker is permitted to: City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 11 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 (i) return pledged goods to the borrower at any time during the redemption period, (ii) sell the pledged goods or remove the pledged goods from the pawnshop premises or other storage at any time after the expiration of the redemption period, and (iii) sell or remove purchased goods not involving a pawn transaction from the pawnshop premises or other storage facility thirty-one (31) days or later from the purchase transaction date. (19) Fail to maintain order in the business. (b) Patrons. No person shall: (1) Pawn or sell or attempt to pawn or sell goods with any licensee if the person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age. (2) Give a false or fictitious name; nor give a false date of birth; nor give a false or out-of-date address of residence or telephone number; nor present a false or altered identification, or the identification of another; to any licensee when seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property. (3) Pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property not their own; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit the property of another, whether with permission or without; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property in which another has a security interest; with any licensee. (4) Make false statements or representations regarding the ownership of items to be sold or pawned. SECTION 4 Section 344.06 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 344.06. - Inspection. (a) Stolen goods, etc. Any person licensed under the provisions of this chapter shall, at all times during the term of said license, allow the inspector or officers of the police force of the City of Saint Paul to enter the premises where said licensee is carrying on such business for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the goods, wares and merchandise therein for the purpose of locating goods suspected or alleged to have been stolen or otherwise improperly disposed of. (b) Inspection by claimed owner etc. All goods, wares or merchandise, or records of same, coming into the possession of any licensee under the terms hereof shall at all times be open to the inspection and right of examination of any person claiming to have been the owner thereof or claiming to have had any interest therein, when such person is accompanied by a police officer of the City of Saint Paul; nor shall any licensee under the terms hereof hide, conceal or stow away any article in his possession from any member of the police department of the City of Saint Paul. Sec. 344.06 - Penalty Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 12 of 13 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-18, Version: 1 SECTION 5 This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its passage, approval and publication. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 13 of 13 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1Ord 12-21 Name:ordinance memorializing rezoning of 900 Bush Ave, 881 Bush, 847 Bush, 860 Bush, and 840 Reaney Ave to I1 Light Industrial. Status:Type:Ordinance Third Reading - No Public Hearing In control:City Council Final action: Title:Memorializing City Council action taken on March 7, 2012 granting the application of the Port Authority for the rezoning of 900 Bush Avenue, 881 Bush Avenue, 847 Bush Avenue, 860 Bush Avenue, and 840 Reaney Avenue from I2 General Industrial to I1 Light Industrial, and amending Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the Saint Paul zoning map (ZF #12-004- 413). (Public hearing held March 7, 2012) Sponsors:Dan Bostrom Indexes:Industrial Code sections:Sec. 61.301. - Application., Sec. 61.801. - Changes and amendments. Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/4/2012 1 City Council3/28/2012 1 Title Memorializing City Council action taken on March 7, 2012 granting the application of the Port Authority for the rezoning of 900 Bush Avenue, 881 Bush Avenue, 847 Bush Avenue, 860 Bush Avenue, and 840 Reaney Avenue from I2 General Industrial to I1 Light Industrial, and amending Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the Saint Paul zoning map (ZF #12-004-413). (Public hearing held March 7, 2012) Body An ordinance memorializing City Council action granting the application of the Port Authority for the Rezoning from I2 General Industrial to I1 Light Industrial of 900 Bush Ave,881 Bush,847 Bush,860 Bush,and 840 Reaney Ave and amending Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the Saint Paul zoning map. (Public hearing held March 7, 2012) WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.357 and § 61.800 of the Legislative Code, the Port Authority, in Zoning File # 12-004-413 <tel:12-004-413>, duly petitioned to rezone 900 Bush Ave, being legally described as Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 282922330053 <tel:282922330053>, legally described as E M Mackubins Addition Vac Streets & Alley Accruing And Fol, lots 1 Thru Lot 29 Blk 2; 881 Bush, PIN 282922330037 <tel:282922330037>, legally described as E M Mackubins Addition Vac Alley & Sts Accruing & Chic Nw Ry Deed No.83419 & In Sd E.M. Mackubins Add All Of Blk 1; 847 Bush, PIN 282922330035 <tel:282922330035>, legally described as Hills Addition Vac Alley & Sts Accruing & Lots 1 Thru Lot 15 Blk 1; 860 Bush, PIN 282922330052 <tel:282922330052>, legally described as Hills Addition Vac Streets & Alley Accruing And Fol, all Of Blk 2; and 840 Reaney Ave, PIN 282922330047 <tel:282922330047>, legally described as Hills Addition Subj To St, Vac Alley And St Accruing And Fol, lots 1 Thru Lot 15 Blk 3; Rezoning from I2 General Industrial to I1 Light Industrial; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 2, 2012, for the purpose of considering the rezoning petition, and pursuant to §107.03 of the Administrative City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-21, Version: 1 Code, submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning petition at its meeting held on February 10, 2012, and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the City Council on said rezoning petition was duly published in the official newspaper of the City on February 23, 2012, and notices were duly mailed to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property sought to be rezoned; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the City Council having been conducted on March 7, 2012, at which all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard, the Council having considered all the facts and recommendations concerning the petition; now, therefore THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That the zoning map of the City of Saint Paul as incorporated by reference in § 60.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows: That the property at 900 Bush Ave, 881 Bush, 847 Bush, 860 Bush, and 840 Reaney Ave being more particularly described as: E M Mackubins Addition Vac Streets & Alley Accruing And Fol, lots 1 Thru Lot 29 Blk 2; E M Mackubins Addition Vac Alley & Sts Accruing & Chic Nw Ry Deed No.83419 & In Sd E.M. Mackubins Add All Of Blk 1; Hills Addition Vac Alley & Sts Accruing & Lots 1 Thru Lot 15 Blk 1; Hills Addition Vac Streets & Alley Accruing And Fol, all Of Blk 2; and Hills Addition Subj To St, Vac Alley And St Accruing And Fol, lots 1 Thru Lot 15 Blk 3 be and is hereby rezoned from I2 General Industrial to I1 Light Industrial. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1Ord 12-20 Name:North End-South Como 40-acre Study Status:Type:Ordinance Second Reading In control:City Council Final action: Title:Amending the Zoning Map of Saint Paul as recommended in the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study. Sponsors:Amy Brendmoen Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:NEndComoDist6plan40AcreResol--Commission 2-24-2012.pdf Planning Commission memo to Mayor and City Council--District 6 plan and zoning study.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/4/2012 1 Title Amending the Zoning Map of Saint Paul as recommended in the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40 -Acre Zoning Study. Body STATEMENT OF FINDINGS BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, on March 18, 2011, the Planning Commission, upon a request by the District 6 Planning Council, initiated a district plan for the entirety of District 6 that focused on the industrial area southeast of the Como/Front/Dale intersection and consolidated policies from previously adopted small area and district plans within District 6, and established a task force to develop recommendations for the plan; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2011, the Planning Commission initiated a 40-acre zoning study to include the area roughly bounded by Saint Albans on the west, Front and Hatch on the north, Western and Farrington on the east, and the railroad tracks and Larch on the south, and charged the task force to develop recommendations for the zoning study; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2011, the 40-acre zoning study was expanded to include the area roughly bounded by Front on the south, Mackubin on the east, Lawson on the north, and Dale on the west; and WHEREAS, the study area is in excess of forty acres; and WHEREAS, given the number of real estate descriptions that could be affected by amendment or alteration of the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission determined that obtaining written consent from property owners would be impractical; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2012, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the North End-South Como District 6 Plan as an addendum to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and the rezoning of a number of parcels in the study area in accordance with and related to the objectives, strategies, and recommendations in the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-acre Zoning Study, and to the overall needs of the community as documented in the plan; and City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 WHEREAS, following a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council where all interested parties were afforded the opportunity to be heard, the Council considered all the facts, recommendations, and testimony regarding the proposed zoning amendments, pursuant to the authority granted by and in accordance with the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statutes § 462.357: THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN SECTION 1 That the Zoning Map of Saint Paul, incorporated by reference in Leg. Code § 60.303, is hereby amended as follows: Rezone from I1 to RT2 25-29-23-32-0064601 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0065595 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0066591 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0067587 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0068585 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0069583 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0088552 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0089558 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0090560 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0091564 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0092568 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0093574 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0094576 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0095586 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0096594 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0097598 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0098602 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0099606 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0116610 Burg ess St. Rezone from B3 to T2 25-29-23-32-0015591 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0016587 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0017581 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0018577 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0019571 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0020569 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0021927 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0045554 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0046561 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0047560 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0048568 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0049574 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0050578 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0051582 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0052586 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0053590 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0054594 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0055598 Com o Ave. Rezoned from I1 to T2 25-29-23-32-0031555 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0034549 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0035545 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0036543 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0037533 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0038527 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0039523 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0080518 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0081522 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0082528 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0083532 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0084536 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-00145553 Com o Ave. Rezone from I1 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0053560 Law son Ave. West 25-29-23-23-0075570 Hatc h Ave. 25-29-23-23-0076582 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from I2 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0047543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0048543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0049543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0050543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0051543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0052543 Fron t Ave. Rezone from I1 to IR 25-29-23-24-0206481 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-32-0144550 Com o Ave. Rezone from R4 to I1 25-29-23-24-0203450 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from RM2 to I1 25-29-23-42-0221333 Atwa ter St. 25-29-23-42-0222325 Atwa ter St. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 Rezone from I1 to RT225-29-23-32-0064601 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0065595 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0066591 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0067587 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0068585 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0069583 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0088552 Burgess St. 25-29-23-32-0089558 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0090560 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0091564 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0092568 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0093574 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0094576 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0095586 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0096594 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0097598 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0098602 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0099606 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0116610 Burg ess St. Rezone from B3 to T2 25-29-23-32-0015591 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0016587 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0017581 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0018577 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0019571 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0020569 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0021927 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0045554 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0046561 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0047560 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0048568 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0049574 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0050578 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0051582 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0052586 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0053590 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0054594 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0055598 Com o Ave. Rezoned from I1 to T2 25-29-23-32-0031555 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0034549 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0035545 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0036543 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0037533 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0038527 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0039523 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0080518 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0081522 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0082528 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0083532 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0084536 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-00145553 Com o Ave. Rezone from I1 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0053560 Law son Ave. West 25-29-23-23-0075570 Hatc h Ave. 25-29-23-23-0076582 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from I2 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0047543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0048543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0049543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0050543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0051543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0052543 Fron t Ave. Rezone from I1 to IR 25-29-23-24-0206481 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-32-0144550 Com o Ave. Rezone from R4 to I1 25-29-23-24-0203450 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from RM2 to I1 25-29-23-42-0221333 Atwa ter St. 25-29-23-42-0222325 Atwa ter St. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 Rezone from I1 to RT225-29-23-32-0064601 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0065595 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0066591 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0067587 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0068585 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0069583 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0088552 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0089558 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0090560 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0091564 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0092568 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0093574 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0094576 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0095586 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0096594 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0097598 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0098602 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0099606 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0116610 Burgess St. Rezone from B3 to T2 25-29-23-32-0015591 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0016587 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0017581 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0018577 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0019571 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0020569 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0021927 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0045554 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0046561 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0047560 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0048568 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0049574 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0050578 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0051582 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0052586 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0053590 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0054594 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0055598 Com o Ave. Rezoned from I1 to T2 25-29-23-32-0031555 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0034549 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0035545 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0036543 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0037533 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0038527 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0039523 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0080518 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0081522 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0082528 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0083532 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0084536 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-00145553 Com o Ave. Rezone from I1 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0053560 Law son Ave. West 25-29-23-23-0075570 Hatc h Ave. 25-29-23-23-0076582 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from I2 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0047543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0048543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0049543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0050543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0051543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0052543 Fron t Ave. Rezone from I1 to IR 25-29-23-24-0206481 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-32-0144550 Com o Ave. Rezone from R4 to I1 25-29-23-24-0203450 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from RM2 to I1 25-29-23-42-0221333 Atwa ter St. 25-29-23-42-0222325 Atwa ter St. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 Rezone from I1 to RT225-29-23-32-0064601 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0065595 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0066591 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0067587 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0068585 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0069583 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0088552 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0089558 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0090560 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0091564 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0092568 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0093574 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0094576 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0095586 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0096594 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0097598 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0098602 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0099606 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0116610 Burgess St. Rezone from B3 to T225-29-23-32-0015591 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0016587 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0017581 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0018577 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0019571 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0020569 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0021927 Kent St.25-29-23-32-0045554 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0046561 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0047560 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0048568 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0049574 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0050578 Como Ave. 25-29-23-32-0051582 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0052586 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0053590 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0054594 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0055598 Com o Ave. Rezoned from I1 to T2 25-29-23-32-0031555 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0034549 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0035545 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0036543 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0037533 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0038527 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0039523 Burg ess St. 25-29-23-32-0080518 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0081522 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0082528 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0083532 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0084536 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-00145553 Com o Ave. Rezone from I1 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0053560 Law son Ave. West 25-29-23-23-0075570 Hatc h Ave. 25-29-23-23-0076582 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from I2 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0047543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0048543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0049543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0050543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0051543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0052543 Fron t Ave. Rezone from I1 to IR 25-29-23-24-0206481 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-32-0144550 Com o Ave. Rezone from R4 to I1 25-29-23-24-0203450 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from RM2 to I1 25-29-23-42-0221333 Atwa ter St. 25-29-23-42-0222325 Atwa ter St. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 Rezone from I1 to RT225-29-23-32-0064601 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0065595 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0066591 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0067587 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0068585 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0069583 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0088552 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0089558 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0090560 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0091564 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0092568 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0093574 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0094576 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0095586 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0096594 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0097598 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0098602 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0099606 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0116610 Burgess St. Rezone from B3 to T225-29-23-32-0015591 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0016587 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0017581 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0018577 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0019571 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0020569 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0021927 Kent St.25-29-23-32-0045554 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0046561 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0047560 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0048568 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0049574 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0050578 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0051582 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0052586 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0053590 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0054594 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0055598 Como Ave. Rezoned from I1 to T225-29-23-32-0031555 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0034549 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0035545 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0036543 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0037533 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0038527 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0039523 Burgess St. 25-29-23-32-0080518 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0081522 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0082528 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0083532 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-0084536 Com o Ave. 25-29-23-32-00145553 Com o Ave. Rezone from I1 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0053560 Law son Ave. West 25-29-23-23-0075570 Hatc h Ave. 25-29-23-23-0076582 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from I2 to RM2 25-29-23-23-0047543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0048543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0049543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0050543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0051543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0052543 Fron t Ave. Rezone from I1 to IR 25-29-23-24-0206481 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-32-0144550 Com o Ave. Rezone from R4 to I1 25-29-23-24-0203450 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from RM2 to I1 25-29-23-42-0221333 Atwa ter St. 25-29-23-42-0222325 Atwa ter St. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 Rezone from I1 to RT225-29-23-32-0064601 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0065595 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0066591 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0067587 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0068585 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0069583 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0088552 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0089558 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0090560 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0091564 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0092568 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0093574 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0094576 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0095586 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0096594 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0097598 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0098602 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0099606 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0116610 Burgess St. Rezone from B3 to T225-29-23-32-0015591 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0016587 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0017581 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0018577 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0019571 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0020569 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0021927 Kent St.25-29-23-32-0045554 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0046561 Kent St. 25-29-23-32-0047560 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0048568 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0049574 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0050578 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0051582 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0052586 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0053590 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0054594 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0055598 Como Ave. Rezoned from I1 to T225-29-23-32-0031555 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0034549 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0035545 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0036543 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0037533 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0038527 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0039523 Burgess St.25-29-23-32-0080518 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0081522 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0082528 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0083532 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-0084536 Como Ave.25-29-23-32-00145553 Como Ave. Rezone from I1 to RM225-29-23-23-0053560 Lawson Ave. West25-29-23-23-0075570 Hatch Ave.25-29-23-23-0076582 Hatch Ave. Rezone from I2 to RM225-29-23-23-0047543 Front Ave.25-29-23-23-0048543 Front Ave. 25-29-23-23-0049543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0050543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0051543 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-23-0052543 Fron t Ave. Rezone from I1 to IR 25-29-23-24-0206481 Fron t Ave. 25-29-23-32-0144550 Com o Ave. Rezone from R4 to I1 25-29-23-24-0203450 Hatc h Ave. Rezone from RM2 to I1 25-29-23-42-0221333 Atwa ter St. 25-29-23-42-0222325 Atwa ter St. SECTION 2 This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage, approval, and publication. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-20, Version: 1 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number __________12-14________________ date ______________February 24, 2012__________ Recommendation on North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study WHEREAS, on March 18, 2011, the Planning Commission, upon a request by the District 6 Planning Council, initiated a small area plan and established a neighborhood task force to develop recommendations for the plan; and WHEREAS, the study area includes the entirety of District 6; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2011, the Planning Commission, initiated a 40-acre zoning study for the area roughly bounded by Saint Albans on the west, Front and Hatch on the north, Western and Farrington on the east, and the railroad tracks and Larch on the south, and charged the neighborhood task force to develop recommendations for the zoning study; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2011, the Planning Commission expanded the study area to include the area roughly bounded by Front on the south, Mackubin on the east, Lawson on the north, and Dale on the west, and charged the neighborhood task force to develop additional recommendations for the zoning study; and WHEREAS, the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and zoning recommendations developed by the task force and the District 6 Land Use committee were submitted to the city for consideration and adoption; and WHEREAS, the North End-South Como District 6 Plan, to be an addendum to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, utilized the Planning Commission template for small area plans and district plans and focused on objectives and strategies requiring City partnership; and moved by _________________Oliver____________ seconded by ______________________________ in favor _________________Unanimous____________ against _______________________________________ North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study February 24, 2012 Page 2 WHEREAS, the North End-South Como District 6 Plan includes policies from adopted small area plans and the District 6 Plan update that had not yet been implemented, including:  Jackson Arlington Small Area Plan, adopted December 10, 1991;  The Great Northern Corridor: A Community Vision Area Plan Summary, adopted April 11, 2000; and  Rice Street Small Area Plan Summary, adopted September 7, 2005; and  Loeb Lake Small Area Plan Summary, adopted May 24, 2006; and  District 6 North End-South Como Community Plan Summary, adopted July 28, 2004, and amended August 17, 2005, and further amended August 2, 2006; and WHEREAS, the North End-South Como District 6 Plan reflects policies from the Trout Brook-Lower Phalen Creek Greenway Plan Summary, adopted October 24, 2001, which has been superseded by the Trout Brook Regional Trail Master Plan, approved by the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission on October 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, the North End-South Como District 6 Plan has been reviewed by affected City departments for consistency with City policies and the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2011, the Planning Commission released the North End- South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study for public review, and set a public hearing date for January 13, 2012; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was provided through the Early Notification System and mailed to the owners of all property in the study area December 21, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to MN Stat. § 462.355 and MN Stat. § 462.357, notice of the hearing was published in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger on December 22,2011, and published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press on December 26, 2011, January 2, 2012, and January 9, 2012; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and Zoning Study was conducted by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2012, at which all persons present were allowed to testify; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission referred the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and Zoning Study to the Neighborhood Planning Committee for consideration, review of the public hearing testimony, and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Planning Committee on February 1, 2012, forwarded its recommendations to the Planning Commission; and North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study February 24, 2012 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following plans, relevant policies of which have been incorporated into the North End-South Como District 6 Plan, be decertified:  Jackson Arlington Small Area Plan, adopted December 10, 1991; and  Rice Street Small Area Plan Summary, adopted September 7, 2005; and  Loeb Lake Small Area Plan Summary, adopted May 24, 2006; and  District 6 North End-South Como Community Plan Summary, adopted July 28, 2004, and amended August 17, 2005, and further amended August 2, 2006; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Action in The Great Northern Corridor: A Community Vision Area Plan Summary recommending the development of new housing in the area roughly bounded by Como, Front, and Western be decertified, as Policies LU1.1 and LU1.2 in the North End-South Como District 6 Plan establish an alternative approach for revitalization of this area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, under provisions of Minnesota Statutes §462.355 and Minnesota Statues §462.357, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and Zoning Study, including rezoning of parcels as described in the Neighborhood Planning Committee’s report to the Commission; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs the Planning Director to forward the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and Zoning Study, including rezoning of a number of parcels in the study area, along with this resolution, to the Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION Barbara A. Wencl, Chair CITY OF SAINT PAUL 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 651-266-6700 Christopher B. Coleman , Mayor Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsimile: 651-228-3220 Date: March 13, 2012 To: Mayor Coleman and City Council members From: Planning Commission Subject: North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study Background On February 24, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the North End-South Como District 6 Plan and 40-Acre Zoning Study after considering public comment included in correspondence and presented at the January 13, 2012, public hearing. The plan, which covers the entirety of District 6 and utilizes the template for small area plans and district plans approved by the Commission, has a three-fold purpose:  To address the conflicts between residential and industrial uses in the industrially zoned area southeast of the Como/Front/Dale intersection. There is a scattering of houses, most dating from the years prior to the approval of citywide zoning, which are surrounded by industrial businesses. A community-based task force, authorized by the Planning Commission, devised objectiv es and strategies for this area, as well as recommended zone changes in the 40-acre study for properties in this area.  To consolidate policies from adopted small area plans in District 6 that have yet to be implemented. These plans include the Loeb Lake and Rice Street small area plans, portions of the Great Northern Corridor plan, and the District 6 plan update (2004). This section of the draft plan was reviewed by District 6’s Land Use Task Force.  To provide designs for improving the functioning and aesthetics of the Como/Front/Dale intersection, the sole Neighborhood Center identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Commission recommendations  Adopt the resolution approving the North End-South Como District 6 Plan.  Adopt the ordinance approving the zone changes in the 40-Acre Zoning Study. City Hall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Phone: 651-266-8560 City of Saint Paul Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:1Ord 12-23 Name:Amending Chapter 267 pertaining to definition of Excessive police and nuisance enforcement services Status:Type:Ordinance Second Reading In control:City Council Final action: Title:Amending Chapter 267 of the Saint Paul Legislative code pertaining to the definition of excessive police and nuisance enforcement services. Sponsors:Kathy Lantry Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/4/2012 1 Title Amending Chapter 267 of the Saint Paul Legislative code pertaining to the definition of excessive police and nuisance enforcement services. Body THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1 Section 267.02 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 267.02 - Definitions. ****** Excessive police and nuisance enforcement services. Excessive police and nuisance enforcement services means those services provided at a specific property address after four (4)three (3) or more calls for service for verified incidents of separate nuisance events had occurred in a prior one-month thirty (30)180 day time period, where the owner was notified in writing that subsequent high levels of police and nuisance calls for service nuisance incidents would result in a fee being charged for excessive consumption of those services, and where the owner had been provided with thirty (30) days following notice of nuisance incidents to abate the nuisance.generating the high levels of calls for service. SECTION 2 This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its passage, approval and publication. City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #: Ord 12-23, Version: 1 City of Saint Paul Printed on 4/10/2012Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™