Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/03/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA MARCH 21, 2016 5:30 p.m. GROUNDBREAKING OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY – West Side of Rec Center Bldg. 6:15 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:15 p.m. Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property 2. 6:30 p.m. City Manager Performance Evaluation 7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports -- None 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business 7a. Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Recommended Action:  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution establishing the St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund.  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution amending the EDA Bylaws. 7b. Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Recommended Action:  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in connection with the administration of Wayzata Blvd TIF District. 8. Communications -- None 9. Adjournment Meeting of March 21, 2016 City Council Agenda 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth 2b. Recognition of Donations 2c. ParkTV Local Programming Month Proclamation 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes February 8, 2016 3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 3c. City Council Meeting Minutes February 16, 2016 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions – None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Recommended Actions: Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 Recommended Action:  Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project No. 4016-1100, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.  Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions on Flag Avenue between 18th Street and Cedar Lake Road. 8b. AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Recommended Action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance approving the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for AC Hotel by Marriott, Central Park West Phase III, subject to conditions and to set the second reading for April 4, 2016. Meeting of March 21, 2016 City Council Agenda Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 8c. Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Recommended Action:  Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat with Subdivision Variance of Arlington Row Apartments East with conditions.  Motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 5 and amending the Zoning Map from R-3 Two-Family Residence to PUD 5 for property on the 7700 block of Wayzata Boulevard and to set the Second Reading of the Ordinance for April 4, 2016. 8d. Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding the existing Special Permit to allow a car wash in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and FEMA floodplain, and approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate and expand the existing car wash in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and FEMA floodplain, subject to conditions recommended by staff. 8e. 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms Recommended Action: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending the zoning ordinance relating to distilleries and cocktail rooms, and to set the second reading for April 4, 2016. 8f. 2016 - 2017 Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc (LELS) Local #220 (Public Safety Dispatchers) Labor Agreement Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and Dispatch Union, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/17. 9. Communications -- None Meeting of March 21, 2016 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolution to recognize Captain Deane Wallick for his 35 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. 4b. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of donation of fiber strand cable from Arvig Enterprises, Inc. 4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions on the south side of Lake Street from Webster Avenue to 50 feet southwest of Webster Avenue. 4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions on the south side of the alley between Maryland/Louisiana Avenue and 31st/32nd Street. 4e. Adopt Resolution rescinding prior traffic controls and authorizing the installation of stop signs on 29th Street at Brunswick Avenue. 4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing calling for a Public Hearing on April 18, 2016 on the issuance of Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds and authorizing the publication of a notice of the hearing for the Mount Olivet Project. 4g. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Common Hope staff in the amount of $40 for Westwood Hills Nature Center. 4h. Declare Gamble Drive, adjacent to the West End, as the official West End Festival Site. 4i. Designate Michels Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $134,891.00 for the Sanitary Sewer Main Rehab Project No. 4016-3000. 4j. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of February 3, 2016 4k. Approve for filing Telecommunications Commission Minutes of December 9, 2015 4l. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 4m. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2016 4n. Approve for filing Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Minutes of December 2, 2015 4o. Approve for filing Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Minutes of January 20, 2016 4p. Approve for filing Parks & Rec Advisory Commission Minutes of February 17, 2016 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: City Council Closed Executive Session Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the proposed purchase and easement agreements. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The City Council will discuss the property acquisition in a Closed Executive Session. Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at a subsequent Council meeting. In accordance with Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The law states: “A public body may close a meeting to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity, to review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data, or to develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property.” The proceedings of a meeting closed under these terms must be tape recorded and the recording must be preserved for eight years after the date of the meeting. The actual purchase or sale must be approved at an open meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Purchase Agreement Easement Agreement Exhibit “C” - Map Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director 182001v9 1 PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1. PARTIES. This Purchase Agreement is made on __________ day of ________________, 20152016, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Purchaser”), and the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota municipal corporation (“Seller”). 2. OFFER/ACCEPTANCE. Purchaser offers to purchase and Seller agrees to sell real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (referred to herein as the “Property”). 3. PRICE AND TERMS. The price for the real property included in this sale is Five Six Hundred Seventy-nineNine Thousand, Eight Hundred Thirteen and No/100 Dollars ($579,813843609,813.00) which shall be payable by Purchaser to Seller in cash or certified funds at Closing. 4. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Upon performance by Purchaser, Seller shall execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed, subject to: A. Reservations of minerals or mineral rights by the State of Minnesota, if any; B. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; and C. Easement for public right-of-way and utility purposes over the East 30 feet of the Property. D. Drainage and storm sewer easement as shown in Document No. 4462254. (hereinafter “Permitted Encumbrances”), which deed shall include the following statement: “This deed conveys after-acquired title.” 5. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. A. Real Estate Taxes Payable in the Year of Closing. Seller and Purchaser shall prorate all general real estate taxes due and payable on or pertaining to the Property in the year in which the Date of Closing occurs on a per diem basis. If the Property is a portion of one tax parcel, the prorated taxes payable herein shall be determined on a proportionate square footage basis. Seller shall pay on or before the Date of Closing all levied and pending special assessments associated with the Property as of the date of this Agreement. Seller shall pay penalty, interest and costs on any delinquent installment of taxes and special assessments payable in the year of Closing. NOTE: Property is exempt from ad valorem real estate taxes. B. Certified Special Assessments. All installments of special assessments certified for payment with the real estate taxes payable on the Property in the year of Closing shall be paid by Seller at Closing. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 2 182001v9 2 C. All Other Levied Special Assessments. Seller shall pay on the Date of Closing all other special assessments levied against the Property as of the date of this Purchase Agreement. 6. SELLER’S BOUNDARY LINE, ACCESS, RESTRICTIONS AND LIENS. Seller represents that buildings on adjoining real property, if any, are entirely outside of the boundary lines of the Property. Seller represents that there has been no labor or material furnished to the Property for which payment has not been made. Seller represents that there are no present violations of any restrictions relating to the use or improvement of the Property. 7. ACCESS PRIOR TO CLOSING. Upon reasonable notice to Seller, Purchaser and Purchaser’s authorized agents shall have the right during the period from the date of this Agreement to the Date of Closing to enter in and upon the Property in order to make, at Purchaser’s expense, surveys, measurements, soil tests and other tests that Purchaser shall deem necessary. Purchaser agrees to restore any resulting damage to the Property and to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller from any and all claims by third persons of any nature whatsoever arising from Purchaser’s right of entry hereunder, including all actions, proceedings, demands, assessments, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Purchaser shall not perform any invasive testing of the Property without Seller’s prior written consent. Seller’s consent may be conditioned upon any restrictions that Seller deem necessary. Purchaser shall provide to Seller a copy of any such surveys, measurements, soil tests or other tests within five (5) days after receipt. 8. POSSESSION. Seller shall deliver possession of the Property not later than the actual Date of Closing. 9. TITLE INSURANCE BY SELLER. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Agreement, Purchaser shall obtain a commitment for an ALTA Owner’s Form title insurance policy (the “Commitment”) issued by Land Title, Inc. (the “Title Company”), pursuant to which the Title Company agrees to issue to the Purchaser upon the recording of the documents of conveyance referred to herein an Owner’s title insurance policy insuring the Property in an amount equal to the Purchase Price. The Commitment shall include proper searches covering bankruptcies, state and federal judgments and liens and levied and pending special assessments, which Commitment: A. Insures that Purchaser has marketable title of record to the Property, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, leases, claims and charges, all material easements, rights-of-way, covenants, conditions and restrictions and any other matters affecting title, except for Permitted Encumbrances. B. Waives or agrees to insure over the following standard exceptions: (1) Facts which would be disclosed by a comprehensive survey of the Property, if Purchaser obtains, prior to the Closing Date, at Purchaser’s sole expense, a survey satisfactory to the Title Company for purpose of waiving the standard exception for survey matters; (2) Rights and claims of parties in possession; and City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 3 182001v9 3 (3) Mechanic’s, contractor’s and material liens and lien claims. Purchaser shall be allowed ten (10) business days after the receipt of the title commitment for examination of title and making any objections, which shall be made in writing or deemed waived. 10. NOTICES. Any notice required to be given to Seller or Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given: (i) on the date of personal delivery; (ii) one day following dispatch by Express Mail or equivalent or (iii) two (2) days following mailing certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the respective addresses of the parties set out below: Seller: Director of Property Services City of Minneapolis Finance & Property Services Department 350 South 5th Street, Room 223 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 With a copy to: Robin Hennessy City of Minneapolis Office of the City Attorney 350 South 5th St, Room 210 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Purchaser: City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2290 With a copy to: Andrea McDowell Poehler Campbell Knutson, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 11. MINNESOTA LAW. This contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12. WELL DISCLOSURE. [Check one of the following: ] X Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any wells on the Property. Wells on the Property are disclosed by Seller on the attached Well Disclosure form. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 4 182001v9 4 13. DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. [Check one of the following: ] X Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any individual on-site sewage treatment systems on the Property. Individual on-site sewage treatment systems on the Property are disclosed by Seller on the attached Disclosure form. 14. SELLER’S COVENANTS AND REPRESENTATIONS A. Seller as part of the consideration therefore, represents and covenants with Purchaser and its successors and assigns that: (1) Seller has the present full authority and power to execute this Agreement and, on or prior to the Date of Closing, Seller shall have the full authority and power to close the sale of the Property. B. All of Seller’s covenants and representations in this Agreement shall be true as of the date hereof and of the Closing Date, and shall be a condition precedent to the performance of Purchaser's obligations hereunder. If Purchaser discovers that any such covenant or representation is not true, Purchaser may elect prior to Closing, in addition to any of its other rights and remedies, to cancel this Agreement, or Purchaser may postpone the Closing Date up to ninety (90) days to allow time for correction. If Purchaser elects to proceed with the Closing following such discovery, Purchaser shall be deemed to have waived its rights to assert a claim against Seller arising from the inaccuracy or untruthfulness of any such covenant or representation. C. PROTECTED HISTORICAL SITES. [Select either (1) or (2) below:] Seller represents that Seller does not know if there are historical, native American, or archeological materials on or in the Property that might be protected by law. X Seller represents to the best of Seller’s knowledge that the property does not have any American Indian burial grounds, other human burial grounds, ceremonial earthworks, historical materials, and/or other archeological sites that are protected by federal or state law. Purchaser’s obligation to close is contingent upon Purchaser determining to Purchaser’s satisfaction that the property does not have any American Indian burial grounds, other human burial grounds, ceremonial earthworks, historical materials, and/or other archeological sites that are protected by federal or state law. 15. CLOSING. The closing (the “Closing”) shall occur on or before _________________, 20152016, except as otherwise extended or terminated as provided under this Agreement. The Closing shall take place at the offices of the Title Company. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, in the event that any of the contingencies provided for in this Agreement are not satisfied prior to the Date of Closing, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force and effect. At closing, Seller and Purchaser shall disclose their Federal Tax Identification Numbers for the purposes of completing state and federal tax forms. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 5 182001v9 5 16. CLOSING DOCUMENTS. A. At the Closing, Seller shall execute and/or deliver to Purchaser the following (collectively the "Closing Documents"): (1) Quit Claim Deed. A Quit Claim Deed in recordable form and reasonably satisfactory to Purchaser, which shall include the following well representations: “Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described Property.” The deed shall include the following language: a) Subject to an easement for public right-of-way and utility purposes over the East 30 feet of the Property. b) Subject to a drainage and storm sewer easement as shown in Document No. 4462254. (2) Seller’s Affidavit. A standard form affidavit by Seller indicating that on the date of Closing there are no outstanding, unsatisfied judgments, tax liens or bankruptcies against or involving Seller or the Property; that there has been no skill, labor or material furnished to the Property for which payment has not been made or for which mechanic's liens could be filed; and that there are no other unrecorded interests in the Property. (3) Non-Foreign Person Certification. A certification in form and content satisfactory to the parties hereto and their counsel, properly executed by Seller, containing such information as shall be required by the Internal Revenue Code, and the regulations issued thereunder, in order to establish that Seller is not a “foreign person” as defined in §1445(f)(3) of such Code and such regulations. (4) Storage Tanks. If required, an affidavit with respect to storage tanks pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.48. (5) Well Certificate. If there is a well located on the Property, a well disclosure certificate in form and substance true to form for recording. (6) Certification. A certification that the representations made by Seller are materially the same as were in existence on the date of this Agreement or noting any changes thereto; (7) Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by either party or the title insurance company to be necessary to transfer and provide title insurance for the Property. B. At the Closing, Purchaser shall execute and deliver to Seller the following: City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 6 182001v9 6 (1) All documents reasonably determined by either party or the title insurance company to be necessary to provide title insurance for the Property; (2) Payment of the Purchase Price; (3) AccessUtility and Access Easement identified in Paragraph 19(A)(3). 17. “AS IS” PURCHASE. Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement or any document contemplated hereby, (i) the Property is being sold, conveyed, assigned, transferred and delivered “as is, where is” on the date hereof and in its condition on the date hereof, “with all faults,” and Seller is not making, and expressly disclaims, any other representation or warranties written or oral, statutory, express or implied, concerning the Property, including but not limited to, representations or warranties relating to value or quality of the Property or the prospects, financial or otherwise, risks or other incidents of the Property or with respect to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby, and (ii) Seller specifically disclaims any representation or warranty of merchantability, usage, suitability or fitness for any particular purpose with respect to the Property or any part thereof, or as to the workmanship thereof, or the absence of any defects therein, whether latent or patent. 18. CLOSING COSTS. A. The following costs relating to the closing of this transaction shall be paid by Seller: (1) State Deed Tax; (2) All costs of obtaining a title insurance commitment; (3) The premium for an owner’s title insurance policy; (4) One-half of the closing fee charged by the Title Company and any other fees charged by the Title Company; and (5) Recording fee attributable to the Quit Claim Deed, the public road and utility easements identified in Paragraph 4(C), the Utility and Access and access Easement identified in Paragraph 19(A)(3). B. The following costs relating to the closing of this transaction shall be paid by Purchaser as follows: (1) The costs for engineers or other consultants, if any engaged by Purchaser regarding the Property; and (2) One-half the closing fee charged by the Title Company and any other fees charged by the Title Company. 19. CONTINGENCIES AND ADDITIONAL TERMS. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 7 182001v9 7 A. The Seller’s obligations under this Agreement are expressly contingent upon Seller’s satisfaction with each of the following prior to Closing: (1) Seller has entered into a Purchase Agreement for the sale to the City of Edina of Seller’s property located in Edina that abuts the Property on terms satisfactory to Seller (“Edina Purchase Agreement”) and the Edina Purchase Agreement is closed simultaneously with the closing of the transaction contemplated under this Agreement. (2) The City of St. Louis Park has taken no action to rezone the Property from its current zoning. (3) The City of St. Louis Park granting a permanent non-exclusive utility and access easement to the City of Minneapolis measuring 125 feet by 125 feet for the City of Minneapolis’ existing pumping station in its current location or another location mutually agreed upon by the parties (“Accessthe form attached hereto as Exhibit B (“Utility Easement”). The Access Easement shall allow the City of St. Louis Park the right to use the easement to the extent that such use does not conflict with the City of Minneapolis’ use for its pumping station. Said easement document shall include a provision that the City of Minneapolis may vacate its easement in the future only upon being paid the sum indicated by this formula: The “land only” assessed value per square foot of the adjacent lot when the easement vacation occurs times Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five (15,625) square feet divided by two (2), less the cost to remove the existing pumping station and its appurtenances if not removed by the City of Minneapolis prior to vacation or termination of the easement. The contingencies set forth in this section are for the sole and exclusive benefit of Seller, and Seller shall have the right to waive the contingencies by giving notice to Purchaser. B. The Purchaser’s obligations under this Agreement are expressly contingent upon Purchaser’s satisfaction with each of the following prior to Closing: (1) Purchaser determining on or before the Closing Date, that it is satisfied, in its sole discretion, with the results of matters disclosed by any survey, Phase I Environmental Audit or by any environmental/engineering investigation or testing of the Property performed by Purchaser or Purchaser's agent. By executing this Agreement, Seller hereby authorizes Purchaser to enter upon the Property at reasonable times to conduct the investigations and/or tests described herein. Purchaser shall be solely responsible for all environmental tests and shall hold Seller harmless from any such costs and shall indemnify Seller for breach of this provision including reasonable attorneys' fees. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 8 182001v9 8 (2) Seller providing to Purchaser within 10 days of the execution of this Agreement, true and correct copies of any existing surveys, permits, licenses, leases, and complete copies of all contracts currently affecting the Property readily available or in the possession of Seller, and notices received within the last 90 days from the city, state or other governmental authorities pertaining to uncured violations of any law, ordinance or regulation. (3) Purchaser determining that it is satisfied with the title to the Property. (4) The City of Minneapolis preparing the deed and easements required under this Agreement in a form approved by the City of St. Louis Park. (5) Seller has entered into a Purchase Agreement for the sale to the City of Edina of Seller’s property located in Edina that abuts the Property on terms satisfactory to Seller (“Edina Purchase Agreement”) and the Edina Purchase Agreement is closed simultaneously with the closing of the transaction contemplated under this Agreement. The contingencies set forth in this section are for the sole and exclusive benefit of Purchaser, and Purchaser shall have the right to waive the contingencies by giving notice to Seller. 20. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for all provisions of this Purchase Agreement. 21. MULTIPLE ORIGINALS. Seller and Purchaser have signed two (2) originals of this Purchase Agreement. REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 9 182001v9 9 The parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year set forth above. PURCHASER: City of St. Louis Park By: Its: Jake Spano, Mayor And: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager SELLER: FOR THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Approved as to Form By: __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney Department Head Approval By: __________________________________ By: ________________________ Finance Officer City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 10 182001v9 10 City of Minneapolis Approved as to Form By: __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney By: ________________________ Finance Officer City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 11 182001v9 11 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 12 182001v9 12 EXHIBIT B UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 13 100715 185615v2 1 (Reserved for Recording Data) EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this ____ day of ___________, 2016, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, a Minnesota municipal corporation, the Grantee, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee". RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of the real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota legally described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (“Subject Property”); B. Grantee owns and operates a water pumping station and related water utility improvements on Grantor’s Property C. Grantee conveyed the Subject Property to Grantor conditioned upon Grantor and Grantee executing this easement agreement for Grantee to continue to operate the pumping station and related utilities on the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sale of the Subject Property, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 14 100715 185615v2 2 hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor does hereby grant and convey to Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, a permanent non-exclusive easement for constructing, operating, repairing, maintaining, replacing and/or removing a pumping station, piping (for purposes of transporting water to the City’s water treatment plant) and associated telecommunications and electronic equipment (collectively “Public Utility”) over, on, across, under and through the land situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on the attached Exhibit "B" and depicted on the attached Exhibit “C” (“Easement Premises”). This grant shall include the right of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, servants and assigns, to enter upon the Easement Premises at all reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair, maintain, replace and remove the Public Utility systems within the Easement Premises, together with the right to grade level, fill, drain and excavate the Easement Premises, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction, and maintenance of the Public Utility. 2. Grantor Use. Grantor hereby grants the uses identified in Paragraph 1 without divesting itself of the right to use and enjoy the Easement Premises provided: (i) Grantor’s use does not interfere with Grantee’s use of the same for the purposes herein expressed and (ii) Grantor does not erect a building within the Easement Premises, unless otherwise authorized by Grantee in writing. In addition to other uses, Grantor is specifically authorized to construct a parking area within the Easement Premises and to use the current driveway located within the Easement Premises for public access to the parking area. 3. Grantee Responsibilities. a. Grantee shall be solely responsible, at its expense, for the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Public Utilities located within the Easement Premises. b. Grantee will repair or replace, at its sole cost and expense, any damages to the Easement City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 15 100715 185615v2 3 Premises or any improvements thereon caused by Grantee’s construction, installation, maintenance, repair, replacement, inspection or removal of the Public Utility system. Such obligation will require Grantee to return the Easement Premises to substantially the same condition as existed prior such damage, with the exception that the Public Utility improvements will thereafter continue to be located on the Easement Premises. c. Grantee shall use the Easement Premises for the uses identified in this Agreement and for no other purpose. The construction, installation, maintenance and use of the Public Utility system must be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, and related requirements of applicable governmental and regulatory authorities, including, but not limited to, environmental laws and regulations. 4. Barriers. Barriers or other obstructions restricting, limiting, interfering, or blocking the Easement Premises may not be installed, erected or maintained by either Party without prior approval of the other Party to this Agreement. 5. Indemnification and Insurance. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of their own officers, employees, agents, contractors, guests, invitees, successors and assigns and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers; , employees and/or agents. It is understood and agreed that the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, and other applicable laws govern liability arising from a party's acts or omissions. Each party warrants that they have an insurance or self-insurance program and that each has minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, and will continue such insurance during the term of this Agreement. 6. Termination. If Grantee discontinues use of the Public Utility, this Agreement shall terminate. Upon termination, Grantee shall seal the well at the streetmake appropriate alterations to the water-main in France Avenue. Grantee shall have no obligation to remove the Public Utility City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 16 100715 185615v2 4 improvements upon termination. 7 Modification. This Agreement may not be modified or amended unless such modification or amendment is signed by all of the then owners of the Subject Property and by Grantee. 8. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota 9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement the day and year first above written. [signature pages to follow] City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 17 100715 185615v2 5 GRANTOR: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Jake Spano, Mayor And: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ______________, 2016, by Jake Spano and by Thomas K. Harmening, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ____________________________________ Notary Public City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 18 100715 185615v2 6 GRANTEE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Approved as to Form By: __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney Department Head Approval By: __________________________________ By: ________________________ Finance Officer By: _________________________________ And: ________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 2016, by _____________________________________ and _____________________, respectively the _______________ and _________Finance Officer_________________________of the City of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ______________________________ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 19 100715 185615v2 7 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY The South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 20 100715 185615v2 8 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT PREMISES City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 21 100715 185615v2 9 EXHIBIT "C" DEPICTION OF EASEMENT PREMISES City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property Page 22 City Council Closed Executive Session of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 1) Title: Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue PropertyPage 23 Meeting: City Council Closed Executive Session Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: City Manager Performance Evaluation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council will review the summarized responses from the annual performance review for Tom Harmening, City Manager and set general direction for work for 2016. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The City Council and City Manager will discuss the City Manager’s performance evaluation in a Closed Executive Session. The information will be sent to Council under separate cover. Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at the next regular Council meeting. In accordance with Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The law states: “All closed meetings, except those as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.” FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 16, 2016 1. Call to Order President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Thom Miller, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Economic Development Coordinator (Greg Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes February 1, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to approve the EDA minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Reports - None 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. First Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement with PLACE. Resolution No. 16-03 Mr. Hunt presented the terms of the first amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement with PLACE. He noted the four properties on Highway 7, and stated the preliminary development agreement will be extended one year, with no cost implications. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 Commissioner Sanger stated she will not support this amendment. She felt it was not a good project, especially considering the Wooddale traffic problem. She added that 60% of the 300 apartment units would be affordable units, stating that low income projects can lead to problems and for those two reasons, and the fact that the project is very expensive, she will not support it. Commissioner Brausen stated he appreciates the work being done on this exciting project and welcomes the affordable housing piece of this project. He added the project is inclusive and provides high quality housing. He stated he supports the project. Commissioner Miller stated he opposed this project and while the ideology is good, the size of project is too large in a very congested area, with several hundred units. He added he has concerns about the infrastructure. Commissioner Lindberg stated he supports the project, noting it is exciting from an environmental perspective. While he does have some concerns, the timing of the project allows for addressing these concerns. Commissioner Spano stated the EDA will not agree to a plan tonight. He added this is an ambitious project in a very challenging area, noting that if the City is not doing big things, it won’t be remembered for big things, so the EDA should try to accomplish this project. President Mavity said to be clear, the EDA is not approving this development tonight, as there is too much to still consider; however, this will allow for more discussion. It was noted that the Agreement terminates on February 29, 2016, unless extended. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to waive the reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 16-03 approving the First Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and PLACE. The motion passed 5-2 (Commissioners Miller and Sanger). 8. Communications None. 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, Secretary Anne Mavity, President Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item: 7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws RECOMMENDED ACTION:  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution establishing the St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund.  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution amending the EDA Bylaws. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to establish a revolving loan fund to facilitate business expansion in St. Louis Park, contract with the Central Minnesota Development Company (CMDC) to administer the initiative, and amend the EDA Bylaws authorizing the Executive Director to sign off on loan agreements up to $200,000? SUMMARY: At the February 16, 2016 Study Session, staff presented a proposal to establish a revolving loan fund to encourage small business development and expansion in St. Louis Park. Upon discussion, there was consensus support for moving forward with the initiative. Under the proposed Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) program, the EDA would offer fixed rate gap financing to new and expanding businesses in conjunction with loans offered through CMDC and local lenders. Financing would be available for land, buildings, machinery and equipment. The benefit to borrowers would be lower down payments which would free up funds for additional working capital. To streamline the process, loan decisions will be based on criteria pre-established jointly by the EDA and CMDC. The Guidelines for the proposed RLF program are attached. Under a management contract with the EDA, CMDC would administer the program, conduct the underwriting and credit analysis, collect loan payments, provide quarterly payments and reports to the EDA, and manage the revolving loan portfolio. Staff would make the final determination on any loan application and would report to the EDA on any loan approvals. In the event there is ambiguity of an application’s conformance with the program’s Guidelines, the proposed loan could be brought to the EDA for further discussion. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: It is proposed that the EDA establish a revolving loan fund capitalized with $400,000 from the Development Fund and contract with CMDC to administer the initiative. There would be no direct charge to EDA as application and processing costs would be incurred by borrowers and administrative fees would be offset by interest income. CMDC would assess a monthly administrative fee of 1/12 of 2% of the balance of all loans outstanding in the EDA’s loan portfolio. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolutions Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines Management Agreement with CMDC Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager, EDA Deputy Executive Director Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the January 26, 2015 Study Session, during an update on the city’s small business programs, it was noted that one of the most frequently asked questions staff receives is whether or not the city has any financing programs available for expanding small businesses. Within the metro area, there are a multitude of financial institutions and organizations that offer financing to local businesses to which staff often makes referrals. However, financing with these institutions alone can, at times, be difficult to secure. Occasionally there are instances in which a company requires a little additional capital to fill a financing gap to purchase some equipment or pursue an expansion or has exhausted nearly all of its existing capital in the down payment and, as a result, lacks sufficient operating capital to effectively run the growing business. In these circumstances it would be beneficial for the EDA to offer a program that partnered with these lenders that could provide additional gap financing. However, there are risks associated with operating such a program independently and it requires significant staff time to properly underwrite, package and service these loans. To alleviate these concerns, staff investigated other existing small business lending programs with which the EDA could partner. One such program is offered in conjunction with the Central Minnesota Development Company (CMDC). Staff has been working with CMDC and the EDA’s legal counsel to formulate the structure of a proposed revolving loan program, establish loan guidelines and determine the necessary approvals required for implementation. Staff has also consulted with other communities that have partnered with CMDC on similar programs and discussed the proposed program with Citizens Independent Bank which saw benefits in offering such gap financing to local businesses. CMDC CMDC is a nonprofit SBA Certified Development Company located in the north metro with over 35 years of experience as a small business lender in the Greater MSP market. It is one of only 25 Premier Certified Lenders in the nation and is one of Minnesota’s Top 10 SBA Lenders. CMDC manages over $70 million in loans and has declared zero defaults in its portfolio. CMDC administers the state’s Urban Initiative Fund and has a partnered with over 20 Minnesota communities (including Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Minneapolis, New Brighton, Richfield, St. Paul, South St. Paul and West St. Paul) to manage their revolving loan portfolios through a management contract similar to the one being proposed. In speaking with several of these cities, CMDC has developed a positive track record working with city staff on various development projects. Partnering with CMDC would allow the EDA to streamline the loan application process for applicants and allow for joint marketing of loan programs. CMDC has experienced lending staff who can provide applicants with continuity and professional experience. It can provide free loan pre-qualifications within 24 hours and in-house loan approvals. In addition, CMDC has relationships with lenders in the metro area that may be working on projects in St. Louis Park. Revolving Loan Fund The proposed St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) would provide gap financing for property and equipment purchases and capital improvements enabling local businesses to grow and expand their enterprises within St. Louis Park thereby creating employment opportunities and increasing the city’s tax base resulting in enhanced economic vitality. The RLF is designed to leverage other financing programs, as well as private financing, provided by the commercial Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws banking industry to induce investment in the community. Below is a general outline of the proposed RLF program. Minimum Requirements All projects must have a private financing match. Eligible Projects Financing would be available to “for-profit” businesses in St. Louis Park for land, buildings, machinery and equipment. Financing for working capital would not be eligible through the Fund. Minimum & Maximum Loan Amounts The minimum loan amount for eligible projects would be $50,000 and the maximum would be $200,000 or 40% of the total project cost, whichever is less. Other Funds Required In most cases at least 50% of total project costs must be privately financed through owner equity and other lending sources. Most applications approved for funding have at least a 50% private financing match. Interest Rate Interest rates will reflect the risk associated with the loan and project. Rates range from 2-4% plus prime. Terms Loan terms would be tied to the useful life of the assets being financed. For example, loans for machinery and equipment would have a maximum term of 10 years. Loans for land and building acquisitions would have a maximum term of 20 years. Program Guidelines Program Guidelines for the award and processing of revolving loans are attached. These guidelines are intended to be used as the procedure for the EDA to follow in the granting and administration of revolving loan funds. The guidelines state the current minimum and maximum loan amounts, desired qualifications necessary for approval of an application, and outline the administration of the program including the fund management services to be provided by CMDC. Per input received at the February 16th, Study Session, the Guidelines encourage eligible women, minority and veteran-owned businesses, to apply for loan funds. The EDA’s legal counsel and Finance Department have reviewed the Guidelines and supports their adoption. Application Procedure The RLF would be governed by the St. Louis Park EDA and all credit decisions would ultimately be made by the EDA. Fund management services would be provided by CMDC which includes loan packaging, underwriting, and marketing services. To streamline the lending process, loan decisions and recommendations are based on criteria pre-established jointly by the EDA and CMDC. As part of the Guidelines, authorization would be provided to the EDA Executive Director to sign off on recommended loan approvals that meet the fund’s criteria. This authorization requires an amendment to the EDA Bylaws. Under the current EDA Bylaws, the Executive Director is authorized to sign off on loan agreements under $50,000. It is proposed that the Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Executive Director be authorized to sign off on loan agreements up to $200,000. The amendment to the EDA Bylaws requires a separate motion. The resolution for this amendment is attached. The procedure for processing loan applications would be as follows:  Loan applications must comply with the EDA Guidelines as well as CMDC’s underwriting criteria.  Each application would undergo CMDC review.  CMDC would make a funding recommendation on each application to the EDA.  City staff would review each application and CMDC recommendation for compliance with the Guidelines.  If an application is recommended for approval by the CMDC and City staff, the EDA Executive Director would be asked to execute the loan agreement.  Staff would provide a report to the EDA summarizing any approved loans.  In the event there is ambiguity of an application’s conformance with the program’s Guidelines, the proposed loan could be brought to the EDA for further discussion.  CMDC would monitor loans for compliance and would provide quarterly updates to the EDA. CMDC Management and Fees Under the proposed Management Agreement with the EDA (attached), CMDC would provide the following services to the EDA. a. Revolving Loan Fund marketing to St. Louis Park area lenders b. Loan packaging c. Loan underwriting services d. Loan servicing e. Portfolio reporting (quarterly) f. Attendance at City staff meetings on an as needed basis. In consideration for CMDC’s management services, the EDA would compensate CMDC as follows: a. Administration Fee An annualized administration fee of two percent (2%) of the balance of all outstanding loans. This 2% would be paid monthly to CMDC on a pro rata basis at the rate of 1/12 of 2% per month. For example, if the outstanding loan balance is $100,000.00, CMDC would be paid $166.67 per month commencing on the first day of the month and thereafter during the term of the loan. b. Packaging, Processing and Servicing Fees In addition to the Administrative Fee, CMDC would be entitled to receive indirect payment from RLF borrowers as follows:  A packaging/processing fee of 1.5% of the loan amount or $1,500 whichever is greater.  A servicing fee of .5% of the outstanding loan balance.  Borrowers will be required to pay all legal and other loan closing costs. These fees would be rolled into the loan balance of the borrower. Such fees are consistent with the SBA 504 loan program. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws There would be no direct charge to EDA for CMDC’s Management Services as application and processing costs would be incurred by borrowers and administrative fees would be offset by the loan portfolio’s interest income. Termination The Management Agreement with CMDC may terminated by either party upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other. Funding Source The proposed Revolving Loan Fund would be capitalized by an annual $400,000 set aside within the Development Fund. In other words, each year $400,000 within the Development Fund would be dedicated to providing gap financing loans in conjunction with CMDC. These funds would remain in the City’s possession until a loan is authorized. NEXT STEPS: After the RLF program is established, staff will develop a marketing campaign to inform local businesses of this new financing option. Efforts will be made to specifically target and encourage women, minority and veteran–owned businesses to apply for funds. CMDC and staff will work together to market the fund. CMDC will assist with the identification of and discussions with banks in the St. Louis Park market. CMDC will also assist in establishing a target market list including local service organizations such as chambers of commerce, real estate brokers, general contractors and accountants. In addition. marketing materials will also be created and made available in strategic locations throughout the city. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVOLVING LOAN FUND APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND, AND APPROVING A REVOLVING LOAN FUND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CENTRAL MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority has proposed the establishment of a Revolving Loan Fund (the “Fund”) to be capitalized through the Development Fund of the City of St. Louis Park for the purposes of promoting the economic development and enhancement of the community for its residents by offering supplemental financing to qualified projects. 1.02. The Authority has authorized the preparation of guidelines (the “Guidelines”) for administration of the Fund, which Guidelines have been presented to the Board for review and are on file at City Hall. 1.03. To oversee day-to-day administration of the Fund, the Authority has negotiated a Revolving Loan Fund Management Agreement with Central Minnesota Development Company (the “Management Agreement”) in the form presented to the Board. Section 2. Approval of Revolving Loan Fund and Guidelines. 2.01. The Authority hereby approves the establishment of the Fund, and authorizes an annual allocation of up to $400,000 from the Development Fund to capitalize the Fund. 2.02. The Authority approves the Guidelines as presented to the Board, and delegates to Authority staff and consultants the implementation of the Fund pursuant to the Guidelines. Section 3. Approval of Management Agreement. 3.01. The Authority hereby approves the Management Agreement in the form presented to the Board, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Management Agreement by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Management Agreement and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority, its obligations thereunder. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority March 21, 2016 Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) has considered proposed certain amendments to its Bylaws. 1.02. Section 7.1 of the Bylaws provides for amendments to the Bylaws by majority vote of the Board at any regular or special meeting of the Authority. 1.03. The Board has determined that it is reasonable, expedient and in the best interest of the public to amend Section 5.1 of the Bylaws to authorize the Executive Director of the Authority to make payments or enter into contracts on behalf of the Authority for amounts not to exceed $200,000 without requiring the approval of the Authority. Section 2. Approval of Amendment to Bylaws. The Authority hereby approves the amendment to its Bylaws in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority March 21, 2016 Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws EXHIBIT A BYLAWS ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARTICLE I - THE EDA 1.1) Name. The name of the public body shall be the “St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority” which is referred to herein from time to time as the “EDA.” 1.2) Seal of EDA. The seal of the EDA shall be in the form of a circle and shall bear the name of the EDA and the year of its organization. 1.3) Commissioners. The seven members of the St. Louis Park City Council shall serve as Commissioners of the EDA pursuant to Resolution 88-134 of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. 1.4) Powers. The powers of the EDA shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in office from time to time. ARTICLE II - OFFICERS 2.1) Officers. The officers of the EDA shall consist of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Executive Director and such other officers and agents as may from time to time be chosen. Any of the offices except those of President and Vice President may be held by one person. The offices of Executive Director and Secretary shall not be held by a Commissioner. 2.2) President. The President shall preside at all meetings of the EDA. At each meeting the President shall submit such recommendations and information as the President may consider proper concerning the business, affairs and policies of the EDA. 2.3) Vice-President. The Vice-President shall have such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by the EDA. In the event of absence or disability of the President, the Vice- President shall succeed to the power and duties of the office of President. 2.4) Secretary. The City Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park shall serve as the Secretary. The Secretary shall give proper notice of all meetings. The Secretary shall keep the seal, and shall affix the same to any instrument requiring it and shall attest the seal by the Secretary’s signature. The Secretary shall also be responsible for the minutes of all meetings and shall perform such other duties as the EDA shall prescribe. 2.5) Treasurer. The Treasurer shall keep accurate accounts of all moneys, drafts, and checks in the name of and to the credit of the EDA in such banks and depositories as a majority of the Commissioners shall designate from time to time. The Treasurer shall have power to endorse for deposit all notes, checks, and drafts received by the EDA. 2.6) Executive Director. The City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park shall serve as Executive Director, who shall have general supervision over the administration of its business and affairs, subject to the direction of the EDA. The Executive Director shall also serve as Assistant Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Treasurer. The Deputy City Manager of the City shall serve as Deputy Executive Director, who in the absence or disability of the Executive Director, shall succeed to the powers and duties of the Executive Director. 2.7) Additional Duties. The officers shall perform such duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the EDA or the bylaws or rules and regulations of the EDA. ARTICLE III - ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS 3.1) Elections, Term of Office, and Qualifications. The President, Vice President, and Treasurer shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting of the EDA in January of each year. Such officers shall hold office until the next election successors are elected and qualify. 3.2) Appointed Offices. The Executive Director and Secretary shall by appointed by the EDA. Any person appointed to fill the offices of Executive Director, Secretary, or any vacancy therein, shall have such term as the EDA fixes, but no Commissioner of the EDA shall be eligible to these offices. 3.3) Vacancies. Should the office of President or Vice-President become vacant the EDA shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. When the offices of Executive Director or Secretary become vacant, the EDA may appoint a successor. 3.4) Additional Personnel. The EDA may from time to time employ or use such personnel as it deems necessary to exercise its powers, duties and functions as prescribed by law. The selection and compensation of such personnel (including the Executive Director and any Deputy Executive Director) shall be determined by the EDA in accordance with law. ARTICLE IV - MEETINGS 4.1) Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the EDA shall be held at the regular meeting place of the St. Louis Park City Council on the first and third Monday of each month, at 7:00 p.m., provided, however, that when the schedule of regular meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council in any year provides for a City Council meeting on a day other than the first and third Monday, the regular meeting of the EDA shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on the date of the regular City Council meeting. 4.2) Special Meetings. Special meetings of the EDA may be called by the President or three (3) commissioners for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for special meeting shall be delivered in compliance with state law and shall conform with the procedures applicable to the City Council for the calling of special meetings. 4.3) Quorum. Four (4) Commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the business of the EDA and exercising its powers and for all other purposes, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. 4.4) Voting. When a quorum is in attendance, action may be taken by the EDA upon an affirmative vote of four (4) Commissioners. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 11 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws 4.5) Order of Business. At the regular meetings of the EDA, the following shall be the order of business: 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of agenda 3. Approval of consent agenda 4. Approval of minutes 5. Unfinished business 6. New business 7. Communications and bills 8. Adjournment 4.6) Resolutions. All resolutions shall be in writing and shall be copied in the journal of the proceedings of the EDA. 4.7) Manner of Voting. The manner of voting on all questions coming before the EDA shall conform to the procedures applicable to the St. Louis Park City Council and may be by voice or roll call. Upon request of any Commissioner, the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the minutes of such meeting. ARTICLE V - ADMINISTRATION OF FINANCES 5.1) Contracts, Checks and Drafts. . The Executive Director shall be the chief purchasing agent of the EDA. All purchases on behalf of the EDA shall be made, and all contracts shall be let, by the Executive Director, provided that the approval of the EDA must be given whenever the amount of such purchase or contract exceeds $200,000. All contracts, bonds, and instruments of every kind to which the EDA is a party shall be executed in the name of the EDA and shall be signed by the President and Executive Director. Execution of any instruments by the President and Executive prior to October 16, 2006, but not attested by the Secretary or endorsed with the EDA seal, is ratified. 5.2) Manner of Presentation of Claims. All bills, invoices, statements and claims for payment of money in discharge of any obligation of the EDA shall be filed with the Executive Director/Assistant Treasurer who shall cause the same to be examined and entered into the record. Each claim against the EDA shall be accompanied by either an itemized bill or payroll, or time sheet, each of which shall be approved and signed by the responsible officer who vouches for the correctness and reasonableness thereof and, except in the case of salaries and wages of employees and laborers of the EDA, shall be accompanied by the claimant’s verified statement of claim as required by law. 5.3) Payment of Claims. The Executive Director/Assistant Treasurer is authorized to pay all claims determined to be proper obligations of the EDA and consistent with the budget approved by the EDA. The Executive Director/Assistant Treasurer shall cause a list of newly paid claims to be prepared for EDA review at each regular meeting of the EDA. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Page 12 Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws 5.4) Facsimile Signatures on EDA Checks. Orders and checks may be combined into a single instrument and may be issued on behalf of the EDA upon affixing facsimile signatures of the President and Executive Director/Assistant Treasurer. ARTICLE VI - INDEMNIFICATION 6.1) Indemnification. The EDA shall be authorized to the fullest extent permitted by law to indemnify any person against expenses and liabilities arising by reason of the fact that the person is or was a Commissioner, officer, employee, or agent of the EDA. 6.2) Insurance. The EDA may purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any indemnified person in that person’s official capacity against any liability asserted against that person and incurred by that person in such capacity whether or not the EDA would have been required to indemnify the person against the liability under Section 6.1 hereof. ARTICLE VII - AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS 7.1) Amendments to Bylaws. These bylaws shall be amended only with the approval of at least four (4) of the members of the EDA at a regular or a special meeting. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 7, 1998 Amended October 16, 2006 Amended March 21, 2016 Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest Secretary                   St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines Adopted March 21, 2016 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 13     Table of Contents Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines I Introduction Page 1 II Authorization and Funding Sources Page 1 III Purpose Page 1 IV Program Objective Page 1 V Eligible Activities Page 2 VI Ineligible Activities Page 3 VII Loan Terms and Conditions Page 4 VIII Guidelines for Application, Approval and Servicing Page 6 IX Delinquency Page 9 X Default Page 9 XI Recaptured Funds Page 9 XII Fund Acknowledgement Page 9 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 14 1    Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to provide written guidelines for the award and processing of loans by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA). These guidelines are intended to be used as the procedure for the EDA to follow in the granting and administration of revolving loan funds. Conformance with these Guidelines does not entitle any applicant to financial assistance under this program. The Guidelines state the current minimum and maximum loan amounts as well as desired qualifications necessary to approve an application. The EDA retains the right to accept or deny applications on the basis of evaluating additional criteria it deems prudent and necessary. All applicants are subject to approval by the EDA or its designee(s). The EDA encourages all eligible St. Louis Park businesses, especially women, minority and veteran-owned businesses to apply for revolving loan funds. This program may be amended or discontinued at any time without prior notice. II. Authorization and Funding Sources Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, as amended, authorizes the EDA to provide loans to private businesses. The Revolving Loan Fund shall be capitalized through the City’s Development Fund. III. Purpose The purpose of the Revolving Loan Fund is to make funds available to enable local and area businesses to grow and expand their enterprises thereby creating employment opportunities and increasing the City’s tax base resulting in enhanced economic vitality. Loans are to be provided when the economics of a project cannot be overcome exclusively with conventional financing and where there is public interest in seeing the business investment occur at the proposed location. The Revolving Loan Fund is not to be utilized in lieu of commercial lending but in participation with such lending sources. The mission of the revolving loan fund is to promote local business development and expansion and attract new business to the community so as to increase the City’s tax base, create and retain permanent private sector jobs thereby improving economic opportunity and living standards for the citizens of St. Louis Park. IV. Program Objective The objective of the Revolving Loan Fund is to fill the financing gap between project costs and private debt financing and private equity by making direct loans so as to facilitate the Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 15   2    growth and expansion of certain business enterprises within the St. Louis Park city limits. The EDA will consider providing a revolving loan to facilitate private sector projects to achieve one or more of the following purposes:  Support development growth and expansion of St. Louis Park small businesses.  Conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Any required changes to the Plan and Ordinance must be under active consideration by the City at the time a Development Contract providing the assistance is scheduled for approval.  Revitalize identified key areas of the City of St. Louis Park through the replacement of blight, nonconforming uses and replacement of other negative influences with high quality, private development.  Serve as a catalyst to encourage further private "spin-off” development within tired, deteriorated, or functionally obsolete areas so as to lead to their economic stabilization and revitalization.  Expand the municipal tax base.  Retain local jobs and/or increase the number and quality of jobs (e.g. stable employment with attractive wages and benefits).  Encourage projects that exhibit efficient urban design; quality architecture and materials; sustainable "green" design; energy efficiency; enhanced stormwater management; improved public safety; and decrease the capital and operating costs of local government.  Promote principles related to Livable Communities and Transit Oriented Development so as to create compact, efficient mixed-use developments that include: attractive design, quality amenities (e.g. public art) as well as pedestrian and transit friendly environments.  Fulfill the strategic directions outlined in Vision St. Louis Park. V. Eligible Activities; Costs The following activities and costs are eligible for financing under the Revolving Loan Fund. A. To assist small businesses primarily by providing financial assistance for growth and expansion, rehabilitation, and facade enhancement. B. Eligible costs. Eligible costs may include the following: 1. Site improvements. Improvements to the land which are a portion of the project cost including but not limited to: building demolition, shoring, grading, new streets or street improvements, parking lots, utilities, and landscaping. 2. Purchase or renovation of building. Purchase and, if necessary, renovation of an existing industrial or commercial facility is permitted. 3. Purchase machinery or equipment. Purchase of major items of machinery and equipment independent of land and buildings. These items must be defined to have a useful life of at least 10 years. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 16   3    4. Building construction. Construction of a new building and/or a major addition to an existing building. 5. Leasehold improvements. Revolving loan funds may be used for certain leasehold improvements provided the lease is equal to or greater than the term of the loan and the City secures a lien on the land or building, and improvements or other collateral deemed to be sufficient to support the loan. VI. Ineligible Applicants, Activities and Costs The following applicants, projects, activities, and costs are ineligible for financing through the Revolving Loan Fund. A. Ineligible applicants: Applications from the following entities will not be considered for financing: sexually oriented businesses, pawn shops, tattoo parlors, off sale liquor stores, tobacco shops, gun shops, check cashing businesses, non-profit institutions, gambling organizations, warehouses, lending or investment organizations, or land speculators. B. Ineligible activities Applications to finance the following activities will not be considered for financing:  Activities that place extraordinary demands on City services.  Activities that are inconsistent with Vision St. Louis Park including those considered to create environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal governments due to the type of operation or processes involved in the business operation.  Activities that continue and/or expand nonconforming uses.  Any activity deemed illegal by federal, state, or local law or ordinance. C. Ineligible costs: Ineligible costs include but are not limited to: developer fees, management fees, financing costs, franchise fees, debt repayment or consolidation, moving costs, refinancing, operating costs, working capital or work completed prior to loan approval. VII. Loan Terms and Conditions Loans provided under the Revolving Loan Fund shall be subject to the following terms and conditions. A. Maximum and minimum loan amounts for eligible projects. 1. Maximum loan amount. The maximum loan available from the revolving loan fund for each eligible project is limited to $200,000 or 40% of total project cost, whichever is less. 2. Minimum loan amount. The minimum loan amount available from the revolving loan fund for each eligible project is $50,000. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 17   4    B. Interest rate: The interest rate shall be fixed and will be determined at the time of loan application and funding. C. Term: The term of the loan will be tied to the useful life of the assets being financed. The following general terms apply: 1. Machinery/equipment. The term of the loan for machinery/equipment shall not exceed 10 years 2. Land/building acquisition. The term of the loan for land/building shall not exceed 20 years. 3. New construction/renovation. The term of the loan for new construction/renovation shall not exceed 20 years. 4. Balance due upon Sale. All balances will be due and payable if and when the loan recipient sells or otherwise transfers any or part or his/her interest in the property or fails to meet any of the guidelines established within this document before the maturity date of the loan or relocates any part or all of the business outside the City of St. Louis Park. D. Wage and job goals: Wage and Job goals shall be established for all loans in excess of $75,000. The wage and job goals will be identified in the Loan Agreement between the St. Louis Park EDA and the borrower. The loan agreement, must include: (1) the number of jobs created, which may include separate goals for the number of part-time or full- time jobs, or, in cases where job loss is specific and demonstrable, goals for the number of jobs retained; (2) wage goals for any jobs created or retained; and (3) wage goals for any jobs to be enhanced through increased wages. E. Green Building Policy: Building expansions 15,000 square feet or greater and renovations 50,000 square feet or greater receiving $200,000 in financial assistance are required to comply with the City of St. Louis Park’s Green Building Policy. F. Equity participation: There shall be a minimum 10% owner equity investment of total project costs required of all applicants. G. Collateral requirements: All loan agreements will be secured by one or more of the following; 1. a promissory note, 2. mortgage, 3. or security agreement as required by the EDA. The revolving fund may take a subordinate position to the primary lender on the assets financed; and surety deposits shall be required for certain construction contracts as set forth in Minnesota Statutes 290.9705. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 18   5    H. Letters of Commitment: Letters of commitment from all funding sources must be submitted for the application to be deemed complete. I. Personal guaranty: Personal guaranties of persons with an ownership interest of 20% or greater are required. Personal guaranties of persons with ownership interest between 5% to 19% may be required by the EDA but are discretionary. J. Loan repayments: Loan payments must begin within one month of funding of the Revolving Loan. The EDA may make exceptions to this rule on a case-by-case basis. K. Loan prepayment: Prepayments are permitted where the borrower makes the EDA whole for any losses or costs associated with the prepayment. L. Notice of award or denial: Applicants will be notified by the EDA in writing not more than fourteen (14) business days after final action has been taken on their revolving loan fund application. M. Loan closing documents: The EDA will close the loan within sixty (60) days of final EDA approval of the loan application. At that time, the EDA will deliver to the borrower all closing documents and a final debt service schedule. In exchange, the borrower will deliver to the EDA its Promissory note to evidence the loan. N. Post closing amendments and modifications: Requests for amendments and modifications following award, closing or disbursement of funds to the underwriting of the original request require EDA approval and shall be presented at the next scheduled meeting of the EDA. O. Loan denial: The EDA will not make a loan if it determines the loan amount would place an undue burden on the financial resources of the borrower or the borrower cannot demonstrate adequate financial capacity to repay the loan or the EDA determines that making the loan is not in the best interest of the City or EDA. P. Appeal: There will be a complaint and appeal procedure for aggrieved applicants: 1. Written notice. Applicants will receive written notice of denial of the loan and the reasons(s) for the determination within fourteen (14) days of the determination. 2. Petition. The aggrieved applicant may petition the EDA in writing for reconsideration within fourteen (14) days from date of the written notice of denial. Any request to appear before the EDA must be in writing and must be submitted at least seven (7) days prior to the EDA’s scheduled meeting. Upon receipt of the written petition for reconsideration, the EDA shall consider the petition at its next scheduled meeting and advise the petitioner in writing of its decision within fourteen (14) days of that meeting. The EDA’s decision will be final. 3. Re-application. Applicants aggrieved by the EDA’s final decision may re- apply for revolving loan funds after ninety (90) days if the concerns in the preceding application are adequately and appropriately addressed. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 19   6    VIII. Guidelines for Application Approval and Servicing A. All applicants shall first contact a primary lending institution to determine if additional financing from the EDA is needed to accomplish the project, and if so, how much. B. The applicant and the primary lender shall then meet with EDA and CMDC staff to obtain information about the RLF program, discuss the project, and obtain application forms. C. The applicant shall complete and submit an application form to the EDA and CMDC staff, along with a processing fee of 1.5 percent of the loan request or $1,500 whichever is greater. (The fee is used to cover processing expenses and will be returned less expenses only if application is denied.) The applicant must provide evidence of its ability to meet the equity requirements or provide a letter of commitment for conventional financing from the primary lending institution. D. The EDA will assign application review to Central Minnesota Development Company (CMDC) which will serve as underwriter for the RLF. The application will be reviewed by the CMDC and EDA staff to determine if it conforms to all City and EDA policies and ordinances and to consider the following: 1. The availability and applicability of other governmental grants and/or loan programs. 2. Whether the proposed project will result in conformance with building and zoning codes. 3. Whether it is desirous and in the best interests of the public to provide funding for the project. E. With written permission granted by the applicant, the application will be submitted by the EDA staff to the Central Minnesota Development Company as the EDA’s advisor. F. CMDC will review each application in terms of its consistency with the goals of the RLF Program as enumerated above. G. In the event there is ambiguity of an application’s conformance with the program’s Guidelines, the proposed application could be brought to the EDA for further discussion. CMDC and EDA staff will evaluate the project application in terms of the following: a. Project Design - Evaluation of project design will include review of proposed activities, timelines and a capacity to implement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 20   7    b. Financial Feasibility - Availability of funds, private involvement, financial packaging and cost effectiveness.  Appropriate ratio of private funds to RLF funds.  Sufficient cash flow to cover proposed debt service as demonstrated by financial statements and projections.  Ability to demonstrate a positive net worth.  Letter of Commitment from applicant pledging to complete the project during proposed project duration, if the loan application is approved.  Letter of Commitment from other financing sources stating terms and conditions of their participation in the project if applicable. Sufficient Collateral  All other information as required in the application and/or additional information as may be requested by the EDA and CMDC.  Project compliance with all City codes and policies.  CMDC will recommend the approval, denial, or request a resubmission to EDA staff. A recommendation from CMDC will be forwarded to the EDA for final action. Right of Refusal The EDA may deny any project which, in its opinion, conflicts with or does not conform to the guidelines established in this document. Approval. If approved, the applicant will be sent a written commitment letter that will outline the terms and conditions of the loan approval. A copy of the commitment letter will be signed by the borrowers and guarantors signifying acceptance of the terms and conditions of the loan proposal and the conditions for funding. Upon the return of the executed commitment letter, EDA staff will begin the loan closing process with the EDA’s attorney. Closing. The EDA’s legal counsel and/or CMDC’s legal counsel will prepare documentation and coordinate the closing with the borrower or the borrower’s counsel. Loan Servicing: The EDA will contract with Central Minnesota Development Company (CMDC) for all loan servicing. When servicing EDA loans, CMDC will comply with Loan Program Requirements and in accordance with prudent and commercially reasonable lending standards. CMDC is responsible for routine servicing including receipt and review of the borrower's or Operating Company's financial statements on an annual or more frequent basis and monitoring the status of the borrower and RLF loan collateral. CMDC will respond to borrower requests for loan modifications following approval of the EDA. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 21   8    For any RLF loan that is more than three months past due, CMDC will promptly notify the EDA that the loan should be placed in liquidation unless the RLF loan has an EDA- approved deferment or is in compliance with an EDA-approved plan to allow the borrower to catch up on delinquent loan payments. CMDC will work with the EDA and borrower to cure defaults and initiate workouts. 1. Monitoring. CMDC staff will monitor loans for compliance with the accepted terms and conditions including job creation statistics and wage and benefit levels. CMDC is responsible for monitoring that the borrower makes all required insurance premium payments and has paid all taxes when due. CMDC is responsible for filing renewals and extensions of security interests on collateral for the RLF loan, as required. 2. Reports. CMDC will provide quarterly portfolio reports to the EDA. 3. Records. Computer files and conventional paper files will be maintained for the purpose of documenting, tracking, and monitoring program and loan activities and will be maintained by the EDA and CMDC staff a. Program records. The following program information will be maintained in the project file, including but not limited to: i. Environmental report; ii. Eligibility determination records; iii. Property inspection report; iv. Progress reports; v. Credit Memo; vi. Correspondence; vii. Loan documents; and viii. Executed loan agreement. b. Financial records. The following financial information will be maintained in each Loan file, including but not limited to: i. Copy of the executed loan agreement; ii. Disbursement data; iii. Progress reports; iv. Repayment data; and v. .Amortization tables. 4. Record retention. All program and financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, environmental review records and other records pertinent to the revolving loan program shall be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years from the final project report and project closeout date. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 22   9    IX. Delinquency There shall be a notification procedure for delinquent loans. A. The City Finance Department is responsible for the timely posting of all loan repayments. B. Thirty (30) day notice. Upon thirty (30) days delinquency, CMDC will notify the City Controller of the delinquency and shall send the borrower a delinquency notice requesting payment within fifteen (15) days. A copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the EDA Executive Director. C. Forty-five (45) day notice. If payment has not been received by the 45th day a second delinquency notice will be sent to the borrower by CMDC requesting payment within fifteen (15) days. A copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the City Controller and EDA Executive Director. D. Sixty (60) day notice. If payment has not been received by the 60th day, CMDC will attempt to contact the borrower by telephone to address the delinquency. CMDC shall also send a notice of default to borrower via certified mail requesting immediate payment and advising the borrower the delinquency will be placed on the EDA agenda for discussion at an upcoming meeting. E. Ninety (90) day notice. If no repayment plan is submitted by the borrower, or if there is no attempt by the borrower to negotiate the amount due, the CMDC will contact the EDA Executive Director and the EDA attorney to sending a 90 day letter calling due the loan in full. F. Negotiation. Throughout this process, every attempt will be made to preserve the company, the jobs, and the loan funds. X. Default If the EDA determines a loan to be in default it may adopt a resolution declaring the borrower in default and convey the matter to the EDA legal counsel for disposition. XI. Recaptured funds Loan repayments shall be deposited into the City Development Fund. These recaptured funds are available to other applicants for utilization as gap financing for certain approved economic development projects. The revolving loan fund shall be administered by a financial management system in compliance with all state and federal requirements. XII. Funding acknowledgement For projects financially supported by revolving loan funds the Borrower shall: Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 23   10    A. Acknowledge revolving loan fund support in certain written materials including company brochures, reports, newsletters, and press releases; and B. On the building or expansion construction site post a sign acknowledging financial support from the St. Louis Park EDA. C. Building expansions greater than 15,000 square feet or greater and renovations 50,000 square feet or greater receiving $200,000 in financial assistance are required comply with the City of St. Louis Park’s Green Building Policy. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 24 1      REVOLVING LOAN FUND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN  THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  AND  CENTRAL MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY      This agreement is entered into this ____ day of March, 2016, by and between the St. Louis Park  Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of  Minnesota, located at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (“EDA”) and Central  Minnesota Development Company, a Minnesota non‐profit corporation (“CMDC”), located at  1885 Station Parkway NW, Andover, MN 55304.     RECITALS    WHEREAS, the EDA has established a Revolving Loan Fund (“RLF”) for the purposes of  promoting the economic development and enhancement of the community for its residents;  and     WHEREAS, the RLF is designed to leverage other financing programs, as well as private  financing, provided by the commercial banking industry to induce investment in the  community; and      WHEREAS, the EDA is in need of Revolving Loan Fund Management Services to  administer the RLF including; origination of loans, transactional loan closings, and loan servicing  (the “Management Services”).     WHEREAS, CMDC has the expertise and personnel to adequately provide the desired  Management Services; and     WHEREAS, the EDA wishes to engage CMDC to provide said services necessary to carry  out the initiative of operating a RLF;     NOW THEREFORE, upon reasonable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is  hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:   Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 25 2    1. SERVICES     CMDC agrees to provide and perform RLF Management Services for the EDA which shall include  the following:     a. Revolving Loan Fund Marketing to St. Louis Park area lenders;   b. Loan Packaging;   c. Loan Underwriting Services;   d. Loan Servicing;   e. Portfolio reporting; and   f. Attendance at City staff meetings on an as needed basis.     Loan approvals shall be the sole responsibility of the EDA. CMDC shall be empowered to service  and manage the EDA loan portfolio in the ordinary course of its business in the same manner as  it services similar loans in its own portfolio. CMDC shall have the exclusive right to collect from  the Borrower or any Guarantors, third parties, or otherwise on account of the Loan, including,  without limitation, principal, interest, fees, and other payments whether such sums are  received directly from Borrower, any Guarantors, or any other persons.     2. TERM OF AGREEMENT     This Agreement is effective commencing the date of execution and shall continue until  terminated as provided herein.     3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES     In consideration for its Management Services, the EDA agrees to compensate CMDC as follows:     a. Administration Fee     An annualized administration fee of two percent (2%) of the balance of all outstanding  loans. Said 2% shall be paid monthly to CMDC on a pro rata basis at the rate of 1/12 of 2%  per month. By way of example, if the outstanding loan balance is $100,000.00, CMDC will be  paid $166.67 per month commencing on the first day of the month and thereafter during the  term of the loan.    b. Packaging, Processing and Servicing Fees     In addition to the Administrative Fee described above, CMDC shall also be entitled to  receive indirect payment from RLF borrowers as follows:   Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 26 3       A packaging/processing fee of 1.5% of the loan amount or $1,500 whichever is greater  will be charged to all Borrowers.    A servicing fee of .5% of the outstanding loan balance.    Borrowers will be required to pay all legal and other loan closing costs.     4. CONFIDENTIALITY     Subject to the State of Minnesota Data Practices laws, the EDA agrees that it will not reveal,  divulge or make known to any person, the firm, or corporation, any secret or confidential  information during or after the term of this Agreement. Confidential information shall be  defined as knowledge, systems, practices, or other information submitted in writing or other  tangible form designated as confidential by CMDC. The EDA shall use such confidential  information for the limited purposes of the Agreement.     5. RELATIONSHIP     Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment, partnership, joint  venture, license, or agency relationship and neither party shall have the right or authority to  bind the other. For purposes of this Agreement, CMDC shall be deemed an independent  contractor. CMDC’s employees shall not be entitled to any employment benefits customarily  given to EDA/City employees.     6. TERMINATION     This Agreement may terminated by either party upon ninety (90) days written notice to the  other. Such termination shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties accrued prior to  the termination date or rights under paragraphs 3 and 4 herein.     7. ASSIGNABILITY     This Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the  non‐assigning party.     8. LAW   The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern this Agreement. The parties agree that the  venue of any legal action arising under this Agreement shall be Anoka County, Minnesota.   Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 27 4    9. SEVERABILITY     If any provision of this Agreement shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be  illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, such provision shall be construed and enforced as it had been  more narrowly drawn so as to be legal, valid, or enforceable. Such illegality, invalidity, or  unenforceability shall not have effect upon or impair enforceability or any other provision of  this Agreement.     10. INSURANCE     CMDC agrees to provide proof of workers’ compensation and comprehensive general liability  insurance and errors and omissions insurance. Comprehensive and general liability insurance  shall be in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00. The general liability insurance policy shall  name the CITY as an additional insured.     11. INDEMNIFICATION     CMDC’s Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CMDC will indemnify, protect and  hold CITY and its assigns and its mortgagees harmless from, and against any and all liabilities,  claims, demands, losses, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising out of  or relating to, the performance of work under this Agreement; but only to the extent caused in  whole or in part by the gross negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CMDC, CMDC’s  subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by CMDC, or anyone for  whose acts CMDC may be liable. CMDC agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the  completion or termination of this Agreement.     EDA’s Indemnity. To the fullest extent of the law, EDA will indemnify, protect and hold CMDC  and its employees, consultants or agents harmless from and against any and all liabilities,  claims, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising out of  or relating to the gross negligence or willful misconduct of EDA, its agents, contractors or  employees. EDA agrees that this indemnity obligation survives the completion or termination.     12. NONDISCRIMINATION     CMDC in performing duties under this Contract shall not discriminate against any person upon  the basis age, race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, veteran  status, physical, or mental disability.     13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT     This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. This Agreement may be  amended only by written agreement of both the EDA and CMDC.     Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 28 5            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day of the year  first written above.     ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC    CENTRAL MINNNESOTA DEVELOPMENT  DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY    COMPANY           By:        By:        Anne Mavity, President    Mike Mulrooney, President         By:       Tom Harmening, Executive Director  Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7a) Title: Establishment of St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund and Amendment to the EDA Bylaws Page 29 Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item: 7b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District RECOMMENDED ACTION:  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).  Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in connection with the administration of Wayzata Blvd TIF District. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate future redevelopment at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd? Does the EDA support authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in connection with the administration of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District? SUMMARY: In early 2012, the City's Inspection Dept. declared the former Santorini restaurant building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd as Structurally Unsafe and ordered its repair or removal. Later in the year, prior to the building’s demolition, the EDA adopted a resolution citing the property as structurally substandard and pre-qualified it for a potential Redevelopment TIF District should a project that met the City's vision for the property emerge. The restaurant building was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014. Statutorily, the City has three years after the completion of demolition to create a TIF district on the property. In order for the EDA to preserve its ability to utilize tax increment to facilitate a future redevelopment on the subject site, it needs to establish a TIF district. The primary difficulty of redeveloping the subject site is that it has unstable structural soils and any multi-story building will likely incur significant extraordinary expenses. These expenses will prove financially challenging to most projects and likely result in a request for financial assistance. The rationale for creating a TIF district on the subject site was discussed at the January 11th Study Session where there was consensus support for establishing such a district. Authorizing the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District will not, in itself, commit the EDA to providing any financial assistance to a proposed project on the subject site. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse a future redeveloper for a portion of its qualified project costs should the EDA agree to do so. Once established, the EDA will have approximately four years to commit tax increment to a qualified project before the District must be decertified. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated cost to create the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District is approximately $25,000 with such expenses to be paid by the Development Fund. District expenses could be reimbursed by the eventual redeveloper of the subject site through a Redevelopment Contract. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolutions TIF District Overview TIF Plan Redevelopment Area Maps Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 2 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On November 10, 2011, the City’s Inspection Department inspected the former Santorini restaurant building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd following reports to the Police Department that the building had been broken into and vandalized. On January 23, 2012, the City's Inspection Dept. sent a letter to the property owner declaring both the building and former garage building located next door at 9808 Wayzata Blvd (“subject site”) had fallen into such disrepair that they were unsafe and a public nuisance as specified in Minnesota State Building Code Section 1300.0180 and therefore ordered their repair or removal. On June 18, 2012, prior to the restaurant building’s demolition, the EDA adopted a resolution citing both properties as structurally substandard and pre-qualified them for a potential Redevelopment TIF District should a project that met the City's vision for the site emerge. The restaurant building was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014. Statutorily, the City has three years after the completion of demolition to create a TIF district on a property. At the January 11th Study Session, it was the consensus of the EDA that it wished to preserve its ability to utilize tax increment to facilitate a future redevelopment that met with its vision for the subject site and directed staff to pursue the formal establishment of a TIF district on the site. Authorizing the establishment of the TIF District will not, in itself, commit the EDA to providing any financial assistance for a proposed project on the subject site. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse a future developer for a portion of its qualified project costs. Once established, the EDA will have approximately four years to commit tax increment to a project before the district must be decertified. Subject redevelopment site: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd Current Conditions The subject redevelopment site is approximately 2.6 acres and consists of two properties: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. It is located in the upper northwest quadrant of the city within the Shelard Park Neighborhood. It is bound by the Westmarke Condominiums to the west, the MetroPoint Office Park to the north, US Highway 169 to the east and I-394 to the south. The subject site is currently vacant, and given its proximity to the highway interchange, is highly Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 3 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District visible. The site has been subject to occasional dumping which has created a public nuisance. According to the St. Louis Park Plan by Neighborhood Input Report dated July 2009, “the most critical neighborhood improvement identified [within the Northwest Neighborhood Planning Area] was decreasing public nuisances, which was primarily related to concerns about [property] maintenance...” Encouraging redevelopment of the subject site is consistent with this objective. Potential Uses Given its location, it is envisioned that the subject site would be conducive to a multi-story office building, hotel, or apartment building or some combination thereof with associated structured parking. Such buildings would be complementary to, and create synergies with, the surrounding land uses. Additionally, these potential uses are viable under current market conditions and consistent with the City Council’s preference to see the property redeveloped with some intensity and density. Need for Tax Increment The subject site is former lakebed and as a result has unstable structural soils. Any building beyond a single story will likely require extensive foundation work. A developer looking to construct multi-story buildings on the site will likely incur the following extraordinary costs: soil excavation, export and import; structural piling, underground storm water management; and structured underground parking. Depending on the project’s density, these costs will likely prevent such a project from achieving financial feasibility. In order to offset a portion of these anticipated extraordinary costs a TIF District is pro-actively being established to provide financial assistance so as to enable a prospective project similar to ones described above to proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that project for a limited period of time. TIF District Approvals The EDA/City Council discussed the rationale for creating a TIF district on the subject site at the January 11th Study Session where it received consensus support. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed TIF District. At its February 1st, meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of March 21, 2016 for consideration of the establishment of the proposed Wayzata Blvd Redevelopment TIF District. The Planning Commission reviewed the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing Plan on March 16th, as required by the TIF Act, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Synopsis of the Proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District The proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District is being established to facilitate the future construction of a multi-story office building, hotel, or apartment building or some combination thereof with associated structured parking. Statutorily TIF districts must be located within a Project Area or Redevelopment Area. The proposed Wayzata TIF District lies outside the current boundaries of the city’s Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. Therefore, within the Wayzata TIF District Plan the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the City’s corporate boundaries (see attached Redevelopment Project Area Maps). With the modification, the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District will lie within the required Redevelopment Project Area and eliminates the need for any further modifications in the future. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 4 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District As shown in the attached TIF District map, the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District consists of two parcels: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd and adjoining rights-of-way. Together, these parcels equal approximately 2.6 acres. Attached is an Overview which summarizes the basic elements of the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District. Details of the proposed TIF District may be found in the attached Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan. Both the Overview and TIF Plan were prepared by the EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers. In a general sense, TIF Plans may be viewed as enabling legislation. They establish the proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic boundaries, maximum duration, maximum budget authority for tax increment revenues and expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well as estimated impact on various taxing jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify the district. The specific mutual obligations between the EDA and a redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial assistance would be contained in a separate Redevelopment Contract between the parties. Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment Contract need to be approved in order for redevelopment projects involving tax increment to proceed. Qualifications of the Proposed TIF District According to the Plan by Neighborhood section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, one of the Shelard Park Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (identified through a neighborhood input process) is:  Redevelop vacant and underutilized properties/buildings along Wayzata Boulevard (frontage road north side of I-394) The subject site is both vacant and underutilized. The land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site and proposed TIF District is Office. The subject property likewise lies within an Office Zoning District. Prospective projects envisioned in the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF Plan for the subject site include a multi- story office building, hotel or multi-family apartment building or some combination thereof. All such uses are consistent with site’s land use designation and are permitted uses (with conditions or by CUP) under the City’s Zoning Code. Thus, the prospective projects described in the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF Plan conform to the Office land use designation within the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site. The proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District meets the necessary statutory requirements of a redevelopment TIF district based on the following findings:  Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.  An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan). Additional findings were quantified in a subsequent Substandard Building Analysis Memo to the Community Development Department dated October 8, 2013.  On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09, the EDA found that the subject parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. The restaurant building was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 5 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Thus the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District meets both the “Coverage Test” and the “Condition of Buildings Test” and thereby qualifies under Minnesota Statutes Section 479.174, Subdivision 10 as a redevelopment TIF district. Other findings for the qualification of the proposed TIF District are contained in Appendix G of the attached TIF Plan. Duration of the Proposed TIF District Under the TIF Act, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). Given the uncertainty as to when development will occur on the subject site, the EDA is electing to receive the first increment in 2020, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District would terminate after 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Once those obligations are satisfied, the City may terminate the district. TIF District Budget The TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment generated by the District to pay for certain qualifying project expenses and capital improvements associated with the District (such as soil excavation, exportation and importation, pilings, stormwater management, and structured parking) should they be necessary. It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within Subsection 3-10 (Uses of Funds) of the attached TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project budget. Fiscal Disparities Election within the Proposed TIF District The proposed redevelopment will contain commercial property therefore the proposed TIF District is subject to the fiscal disparities calculation. Consistent with the city’s TIF Policy and past practice, the Wayzata Blvd TIF District will contribute to fiscal disparities (as opposed to the tax base of the City making the contribution). TIF Interfund Loan The EDA is also requested to authorize an Interfund Loan to pay for certain qualified costs identified in the TIF Plan. Adoption of the proposed resolution will allow the EDA to pay costs related to the establishment and administration of the proposed TIF District, from non-TIF sources, and to reimburse itself from increment generated by the TIF District when received. Summary Providing tax increment financing assistance to facilitate redevelopment on the subject site will make it possible to construct a high quality project consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Livable Communities design principles and the community’s vision. Such assistance will likely be necessary to bring the subject site to optimal market value resulting in increased assessed value, new employment opportunities as well as provide the community with expanded office, hotel and housing choices. NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue working with developers on potential projects that conform to the subject site’s land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan, and are consistent with the Zoning Code as well as the City Council/EDA’s vision. Once such a project is identified it will be brought before the EDA for its consideration. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 6 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; ADOPTING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS THEREIN; AND ESTABLISHING THE WAYZATA BOULEVARD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of St. Louis Park (the "City") that the EDA expand the geographic boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area"), adopt a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts therein (the "TIF Plan Modifications"), and establish the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification, TIF Plan Modifications, and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Board's consideration; and WHEREAS, the EDA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to be prepared; and WHEREAS, the EDA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption of the Plans. The EDA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide for review of and written comment on the Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Plans upon published notice as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: 1. The boundaries of the Project Area are being expanded. 2. The TIF Plan Modifications are being made to incorporate the expanded boundaries of the Project Area. 3. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans. 4. The EDA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 (a)(1), and finds that the adoption of the proposed TIF Plan conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to redevelop an area of the State of Minnesota which is Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 7 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District already built up and that the adoption of the proposed TIF Plan will help provide employment opportunities in the State, assist in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City and the State and promote the construction of high quality housing, hotel, and/or office space, thereby serving a public purpose. 5. The EDA further finds that the TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance necessary to make the private development financially feasible. 6. The EDA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. 7. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing thereon, the Plans (including the TIF Plan), as presented to the EDA on this date, are hereby approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the EDA. 8. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the EDA's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a Development Agreement with any developer. 9. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the EDA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. 10. The Executive Director of the EDA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the Economic Development Authority March 21, 2016 __________________________________ _______________________________________ Thomas K. Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest: __________________________________ Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 8 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAYZATA BOULEVARD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Authority (the "EDA") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"), intends to establish the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. WHEREAS, the EDA has determined to use tax increments from the TIF District to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan, which may include land/building acquisition, site improvements/preparation, utilities, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs"), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from EDA funds available for such purposes. WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the EDA is authorized to advance or loan money from the EDA's general fund or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. WHEREAS, the EDA intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan"). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: 1. The EDA hereby authorizes the advance of up to $50,000 from any legally authorized EDA fund or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. The EDA shall reimburse itself for such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate. 2. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date"), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the EDA has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Page 9 Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District any other dates determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 3. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 4. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the EDA without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 5. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the EDA in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the EDA. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The EDA shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 6. The EDA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority March 21, 2016 Tom Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest Secretary Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of St. Louis Park Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete Tax Increment Financing Plan. Proposed action:  Establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan).  Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 which includes the geographic expansion of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District, which represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.  Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1, which reflect the geographic expansion of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City. Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district Parcel Numbers: 01-117-22-14-0018 01-117-22-14-0002 Proposed Development: The District is being created to facilitate the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story building with approximately 150 units of rental housing, and/or a multi-story office building with approximately 40,000 square feet, and structured parking associated with each. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description. Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment (26 years of increment). The City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020. It is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after December 31, 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. Estimated annual tax increment: Up to $1,260,050 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 10 Page 2 Authorized uses: The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that may be expended: Land/Building Acquisition .................................................. $2,500,000 Site Improvements/Preparation ........................................... $1,500,000 Public Utilities .................................................................... $1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements ......................................... $8,172,214 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ....................................... $2,251,175 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .............................................. $15,423,389 Interest ................................................................................ $9,339,532 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ........................................... $24,762,921 See Subsection 3-10, on page 3-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund loan. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Interfund Loan Requirement: The EDA will be approving an interfund loan to pay for administrative and/or capital expenses that will be incurred prior to receiving the first TIF dollars from the District. 4 Year Activity Rule (§ 469.176 Subd. 6) After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:  Demolition  Rehabilitation  Renovation  Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by approximately March 2020, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule (§ 469.1763 Subd. 3) Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be expended or obligated to be expended. Any obligations in the District made after approximately March 2021, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the City resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 11 Page 3 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 12 Page 4 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 13 As of March 14, 2016 Draft for Public Hearing Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: March 21, 2016 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 14 Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 1-1 Foreword ............................................................. 1-1 Section 2 - Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Background ............................................. 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Modification............................................. 2-1 Section 3 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District ............................. 3-1 Subsection 3-1. Foreword............................................... 3-1 Subsection 3-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 3-1 Subsection 3-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 3-1 Subsection 3-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 3-1 Subsection 3-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 3-2 Subsection 3-6. Classification of the District................................. 3-2 Subsection 3-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 3-4 Subsection 3-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 3-4 Subsection 3-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 3-5 Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 3-6 Subsection 3-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 3-6 Subsection 3-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 3-7 Subsection 3-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 3-8 Subsection 3-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 3-8 Subsection 3-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 3-10 Subsection 3-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 3-10 Subsection 3-17. Modifications to the District................................ 3-10 Subsection 3-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 3-11 Subsection 3-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 3-12 Subsection 3-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 3-13 Subsection 3-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 3-13 Subsection 3-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 3-13 Subsection 3-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 3-14 Subsection 3-24. Administration of the District ............................... 3-14 Subsection 3-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 3-14 Subsection 3-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 3-14 Subsection 3-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 3-15 Subsection 3-28. Summary.............................................. 3-15 Appendix A Project Description ...................................................... A-1 Appendix B Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 15 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 16 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District and the expansion of the geographic area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 as described below. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 17 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 2-1 Section 2 - Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 Subsection 2-1 Background The purpose of the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 is to provide for the enlargement of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City. Subsection 2-2 Modification The EDA and City are hereby modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the following Tax Increment Financing Districts to reflect the expansion of the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1: • 4900 Excelsior (County Number 1321) • Aquila Commons (County Number 1311) • Edgewood (County Number 1309) • Eliot Park (County Number 1318/1319) • Ellipse on Excelsior (County Number 1315) • Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (County Number 1312) • Hardcoat (County Number 1316) • Highway 7 Corporate Center 7 & HSTI (County Number 1313) • Mill City (County Number 1307) • Park Center (County Number 1304) • Park Commons (County Number 1308) • Shoreham (County Number 1320) • The West End (County Number 1314) • Wolfe Lake Commercial (County Number 1310) • Zarthan & 16th Street (County Number 1305 and 1306) (Collectively, the "TIF Districts"). The following sentence is to be inserted into the Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts: The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, as shown on Appendix A hereto. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 18 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-1 Section 3 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 3-1. Foreword The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 3-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 3-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate redevelopment of these parcels. Viable proposed uses include the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story building with approximately 150 units of rental housing, and/or a multi-story office building with approximately 40,000 square feet, and structured parking associated with each. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA has not entered into an agreement or designated a developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur in 2017 or early 2018. The uses contemplated by this TIF Plan are expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Subsection 3-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 19 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-2 Subsection 3-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 3-6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: (xvi) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; (xvii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (xviii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 20 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-3 to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph (e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; (2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and (4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f). (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. (f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • The District is a redevelopment district consisting of two parcels. • Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. • An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (See Appendix F). Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 21 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-4 • On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09 (the “EDA Resolution”), the EDA found that the parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix F), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. Demolition was completed on July 9, 2014. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 3-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The EDA elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 3-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2015 for taxes payable 2016. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2018) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2020. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 22 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-5 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,104,112 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $37,538 Fiscal Disparities Contribution $117,434 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $949,140 Original Local Tax Rate 1.32757 Estimated Pay 2016 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,260,050 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $271,575. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 3-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $22,511,746 Interest $2,251,175 TOTAL $24,762,921 The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $15,423,389. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 23 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-6 you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story apartment building with approximately 150 units and structured parking associated with each. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $1,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $3,500,000 Utilities $1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $7,672,214 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,251,175 PROJECT COST TOTAL $15,423,389 Interest $9,339,532 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $24,762,921 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 3-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 24 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-7 current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 3-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 25 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-8 (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 3-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 3-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows on the next page if the "but for" test was not met: Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 26 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-9 IMPACT ON TAX BASE Estimated 2015/Pay 2016 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,467,566,893 949,140 0.0647% City of St. Louis Park 57,090,028 949,140 1.6625% Hopkins ISD No. 270 103,765,150 949,140 0.9147% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Estimated Pay 2016 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Hennepin County 0.453140 34.13% 949,140 430,093 City of St. Louis Park 0.481170 36.24% 949,140 456,698 Hopkins ISD No. 270 0.288880 21.76% 949,140 274,188 Other 0.104380 7.86%949,140 99,071 Total 1.327570 100.00%1,260,050 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates and figures, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $22,511,746; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City tracks all calls for service by neighborhood and property type. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. Sidewalk and lighting costs will be approximately $50,000. The current sanitary sewer (SAC) connection fee is $2,485 and the water (WAC) connection fee is $750. However, the total amount of units to be charged will be determined by the Metropolitan Council. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 27 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-10 The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $4,898,556; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,683,259; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 3-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: • A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing. Subsection 3-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 3-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 28 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-11 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 3-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 29 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-12 (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 3-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 30 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-13 The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately March 2020 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 3-20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 3-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 31 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-14 Subsection 3-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 3-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 3-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator. Subsection 3-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 3-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 32 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-15 increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 3-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 3-28. Summary The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 33 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-16 the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 34 Appendix A-1 Appendix A Project Description The District is being created to facilitate the construction of either a multi-story office building with approximately 40,000 square feet, a hotel with approximately 120 rooms, an apartment building with approximately 150 units, or some combination thereof along with underground or structured parking associated with each development. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 35 Appendix B-1 Appendix B Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 36 TIF Districts Legend Redevelopment Project Area TIF Districts 4900 Excelsior (2041) Aquila Commons (2032) Edgewood (2025) Eliot Park (2040) Ellipse on Excelsior (2036) Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (2029) Hardcoat (2022) Highway 7 CC & HSTI (2032) Mill City (2026) Park Center (2023) Park Commons (2027) Shoreham (2041) The West End (2036) Wayzata Blvd (Proposed) Wolfe Lake Commercial (2031) Zarthan & 16th Street (2026) Updated January 2016 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department ± (Legal Maximum Term Limit) 010.5 Miles The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City of St. Louis Park. Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Districts Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 37 ´ Wayzata Blvd TIF District Legend Redevelopment Project No. 1 Wayzata Blvd TIF District Parcels February 1, 2016 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 3,600 0 3,6001,800 Feet Proposed TIF District Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 38 Appendix C-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 01-117-22-14-0018 9920 Wayzata Blvd 9920 Hotels LLC 01-117-22-14-0002 9808 Wayzata Blvd 9920 Hotels LLC Legal description of Property to be Including in the District: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along the most Southerly line of said Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a distance of 114.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning. [Torrens Certificate No. 1212398] AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance of 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 said Block 7; thence South 02 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 and the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning. [Torrens Certification No. 1335184] Together with the adjacent portion of that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117 North, Range 20 North, shown as Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27- 3, lying Northerly of Line 1 described as follows: Line 1: Beginning at Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence Easterly on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said plat of 214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; then continue on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds for 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left for 350.87 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the North and passing through right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as shown on said Plat 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18 minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds for 7.37 feet to the Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said plat No. 27-23 and there terminating. [Abstract property] Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 39 Appendix D-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 40 2/17/2016Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2018Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,0002.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-18Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-19Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2016First $100,0000.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2020Over $100,0000.25%Years of Tax Increment26Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2045First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio29.7759% Pay 2016 PrelimFirst $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate150.2620% Pay 2016 PrelimOver $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 132.757% Pay 2016 PrelimAgricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 132.757% Pay 2016 PrelimState-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 49.0000% Pay 2016 PrelimMarket Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.18722% Pay 2016 PrelimBuilding Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.101-117-22-14-00189920 Wayzata Blvd1,011,0000 1,011,000100% 1,011,000 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.19,470 Rental12,638 01-117-22-14-00189920 Wayzata Blvd100,0000 100,000100% 100,000 Pay 2016 C/I2,000 Rental1,250 201-117-22-14-00029808 Wayzata Blvd1,020,0000 1,020,000100% 1,020,000 Pay 2016 C/I20,400 C/I Pref.19,650 01-117-22-14-00029808 Wayzata Blvd200,0000 200,000100% 200,000 Pay 2016 C/I4,000 C/I4,000 2,331,0000 2,331,0002,331,000 45,87037,538Note:1. Base values are for pay 2016 based upon review of County website on 2-16-16.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xlsEconomic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 41 2/17/2016Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelEstimated TaxableTotal Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2018201920202021 PayableApt180,000180,000 150 27,000,000 Rental337,5002,250 50%100%100%100%2021Hotel 86,00086,000 120 10,320,000 C/I Pref. 205,6501,714 50%100%100%100%2021TOTAL37,320,000543,150 Subtotal Residential150 27,000,000337,500 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.120 10,320,000205,650 Note:1. Market values are based upon email from City Assessor on 8-4-15.TotalFiscal LocalLocalFiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApt337,5000337,500 448,0550050,549 498,604 3,324.03Hotel 205,650 61,234 144,416 191,722 92,012 100,76919,321 403,823 3,365.20TOTAL 543,150 61,234 481,916 639,777 92,012 100,76969,871 902,428Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes902,428Current Market Value - Est.2,331,000less State-wide Taxes(100,769)New Market Value - Est.37,320,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(92,012) Difference34,989,000less Market Value Taxes(69,871)Present Value of Tax Increment12,178,330less Base Value Taxes(40,485) Difference22,810,670Annual Gross TIF 599,292Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:22,810,670 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xlsEconomic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 42 2/17/2016Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/19- - - - 08/01/19- - - - 02/01/20100% 271,575 (37,538) (23,575) 210,462 132.757% 279,404 139,702 (503) (13,920) 125,279 115,738 0.5 2020 08/01/20100% 271,575 (37,538) (23,575) 210,462 132.757% 279,404 139,702 (503) (13,920) 125,279 229,207 1 2020 02/01/21100% 543,150 (37,538) (54,192) 451,420 132.757% 599,292 299,646 (1,079) (29,857) 268,711 467,815 1.5 2021 08/01/21100% 543,150 (37,538) (54,192) 451,420 132.757% 599,292 299,646 (1,079) (29,857) 268,711 701,744 2 2021 02/01/22100% 559,445 (37,538) (56,029) 465,878 132.757% 618,485 309,243 (1,113) (30,813) 277,317 938,431 2.5 2022 08/01/22100% 559,445 (37,538) (56,029) 465,878 132.757% 618,485 309,243 (1,113) (30,813) 277,317 1,170,477 3 2022 02/01/23100% 576,228 (37,538) (57,921) 480,769 132.757% 638,255 319,127 (1,149) (31,798) 286,181 1,405,244 3.5 2023 08/01/23100% 576,228 (37,538) (57,921) 480,769 132.757% 638,255 319,127 (1,149) (31,798) 286,181 1,635,409 4 2023 02/01/24100% 593,515 (37,538) (59,870) 496,107 132.757% 658,617 329,308 (1,186) (32,812) 295,311 1,868,259 4.5 2024 08/01/24100% 593,515 (37,538) (59,870) 496,107 132.757% 658,617 329,308 (1,186) (32,812) 295,311 2,096,544 5 2024 02/01/25100% 611,320 (37,538) (61,878) 511,905 132.757% 679,590 339,795 (1,223) (33,857) 304,714 2,327,479 5.5 2025 08/01/25100% 611,320 (37,538) (61,878) 511,905 132.757% 679,590 339,795 (1,223) (33,857) 304,714 2,553,887 6 2025 02/01/26100% 629,660 (37,538) (63,945) 528,177 132.757% 701,192 350,596 (1,262) (34,933) 314,400 2,782,910 6.5 2026 08/01/26100% 629,660 (37,538) (63,945) 528,177 132.757% 701,192 350,596 (1,262) (34,933) 314,400 3,007,443 7 2026 02/01/27100% 648,550 (37,538) (66,075) 544,937 132.757% 723,442 361,721 (1,302) (36,042) 324,377 3,234,559 7.5 2027 08/01/27100% 648,550 (37,538) (66,075) 544,937 132.757% 723,442 361,721 (1,302) (36,042) 324,377 3,457,221 8 2027 02/01/28100% 668,006 (37,538) (68,268) 562,200 132.757% 746,360 373,180 (1,343) (37,184) 334,653 3,682,433 8.5 2028 08/01/28100% 668,006 (37,538) (68,268) 562,200 132.757% 746,360 373,180 (1,343) (37,184) 334,653 3,903,229 9 2028 02/01/29100% 688,046 (37,538) (70,528) 579,981 132.757% 769,966 384,983 (1,386) (38,360) 345,237 4,126,542 9.5 2029 08/01/29100% 688,046 (37,538) (70,528) 579,981 132.757% 769,966 384,983 (1,386) (38,360) 345,237 4,345,476 10 2029 02/01/30100% 708,688 (37,538) (72,855) 598,295 132.757% 794,279 397,140 (1,430) (39,571) 356,139 4,566,895 10.5 2030 08/01/30100% 708,688 (37,538) (72,855) 598,295 132.757% 794,279 397,140 (1,430) (39,571) 356,139 4,783,973 11 2030 02/01/31100% 729,948 (37,538) (75,252) 617,159 132.757% 819,322 409,661 (1,475) (40,819) 367,368 5,003,504 11.5 2031 08/01/31100% 729,948 (37,538) (75,252) 617,159 132.757% 819,322 409,661 (1,475) (40,819) 367,368 5,218,731 12 2031 02/01/32100% 751,847 (37,538) (77,720) 636,589 132.757% 845,116 422,558 (1,521) (42,104) 378,933 5,436,381 12.5 2032 08/01/32100% 751,847 (37,538) (77,720) 636,589 132.757% 845,116 422,558 (1,521) (42,104) 378,933 5,649,762 13 2032 02/01/33100% 774,402 (37,538) (80,263) 656,601 132.757% 871,684 435,842 (1,569) (43,427) 390,846 5,865,537 13.5 2033 08/01/33100% 774,402 (37,538) (80,263) 656,601 132.757% 871,684 435,842 (1,569) (43,427) 390,846 6,077,081 14 2033 02/01/34100% 797,634 (37,538) (82,882) 677,214 132.757% 899,049 449,525 (1,618) (44,791) 403,116 6,290,987 14.5 2034 08/01/34100% 797,634 (37,538) (82,882) 677,214 132.757% 899,049 449,525 (1,618) (44,791) 403,116 6,500,700 15 2034 02/01/35100% 821,563 (37,538) (85,580) 698,445 132.757% 927,235 463,618 (1,669) (46,195) 415,754 6,712,746 15.5 2035 08/01/35100% 821,563 (37,538) (85,580) 698,445 132.757% 927,235 463,618 (1,669) (46,195) 415,754 6,920,634 16 2035 02/01/36100% 846,210 (37,538) (88,359) 720,314 132.757% 956,267 478,133 (1,721) (47,641) 428,771 7,130,828 16.5 2036 08/01/36100% 846,210 (37,538) (88,359) 720,314 132.757% 956,267 478,133 (1,721) (47,641) 428,771 7,336,900 17 2036 02/01/37100% 871,596 (37,538) (91,221) 742,838 132.757% 986,169 493,085 (1,775) (49,131) 442,179 7,545,249 17.5 2037 08/01/37100% 871,596 (37,538) (91,221) 742,838 132.757% 986,169 493,085 (1,775) (49,131) 442,179 7,749,512 18 2037 02/01/38100% 897,744 (37,538) (94,169) 766,038 132.757% 1,016,969 508,485 (1,831) (50,665) 455,989 7,956,025 18.5 2038 08/01/38100% 897,744 (37,538) (94,169) 766,038 132.757% 1,016,969 508,485 (1,831) (50,665) 455,989 8,158,489 19 2038 02/01/39100% 924,677 (37,538) (97,205) 789,934 132.757% 1,048,693 524,346 (1,888) (52,246) 470,213 8,363,174 19.5 2039 08/01/39100% 924,677 (37,538) (97,205) 789,934 132.757% 1,048,693 524,346 (1,888) (52,246) 470,213 8,563,846 20 2039 02/01/40100% 952,417 (37,538) (100,332) 814,547 132.757% 1,081,368 540,684 (1,946) (53,874) 484,864 8,766,714 20.5 2040 08/01/40100% 952,417 (37,538) (100,332) 814,547 132.757% 1,081,368 540,684 (1,946) (53,874) 484,864 8,965,603 21 2040 02/01/41100% 980,989 (37,538) (103,554) 839,898 132.757% 1,115,024 557,512 (2,007) (55,550) 499,954 9,166,662 21.5 2041 08/01/41100% 980,989 (37,538) (103,554) 839,898 132.757% 1,115,024 557,512 (2,007) (55,550) 499,954 9,363,778 22 2041 02/01/42100% 1,010,419 (37,538) (106,872) 866,010 132.757% 1,149,689 574,844 (2,069) (57,277) 515,497 9,563,037 22.5 2042 08/01/42100% 1,010,419 (37,538) (106,872) 866,010 132.757% 1,149,689 574,844 (2,069) (57,277) 515,497 9,758,389 23 2042 02/01/43100% 1,040,732 (37,538) (110,289) 892,905 132.757% 1,185,394 592,697 (2,134) (59,056) 531,507 9,955,859 23.5 2043 08/01/43100% 1,040,732 (37,538) (110,289) 892,905 132.757% 1,185,394 592,697 (2,134) (59,056) 531,507 10,149,457 24 2043 02/01/44100% 1,071,954 (37,538) (113,809) 920,607 132.757% 1,222,170 611,085 (2,200) (60,889) 547,997 10,345,147 24.5 2044 08/01/44100% 1,071,954 (37,538) (113,809) 920,607 132.757% 1,222,170 611,085 (2,200) (60,889) 547,997 10,537,000 25 2044 02/01/45100% 1,104,112 (37,538) (117,434) 949,140 132.757% 1,260,050 630,025 (2,268) (62,776) 564,981 10,730,921 25.5 2045 08/01/45100% 1,104,112 (37,538) (117,434) 949,140 132.757% 1,260,050 630,025 (2,268) (62,776) 564,981 10,921,039 26 2045 02/01/46 Total22,593,081 (81,335) (2,251,175) 20,260,571 Present Value From 08/01/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00%12,178,330 (43,842) (1,213,449) 10,921,039 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xlsEconomic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 43 Appendix E-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 44 Appendix F-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 45 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 46 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 47 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 48 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 49 Appendix G-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The District consists of two parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing, hotel, and/or office purposes. In meeting the statutory criteria to qualify the District as a redevelopment district the City relies on the following facts and findings: • Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. • An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (see Appendix F of the TIF Plan). • On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09 (the “EDA Resolution”), the EDA found that the parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. Demolition was completed on July 9, 2014. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that each of the projects proposed for the District meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Historically, due to the high cost of redevelopment within the City for housing, hotel, and office purposes and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, these projects would be feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost of any of the projects proposed within the District. As stated above, high redevelopment costs in this area have made most redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Any projects that could potentially move forward without public assistance would necessarily be much smaller in scope, and would not fully put the property in the District to its highest and best use. Thus, the City finds that no other redevelopment of similar scope can reasonably anticipated on this site without assistance substantially similar to that provided for comparable projects in the past. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 50 Appendix G-2 a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $34,989,000. c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $12,178,330. d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $22,810,670 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. Each of the projects proposed to be constructed within the District would result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. But-For Analysis Current Market Value 2,331,000 New Market Value - Estimate 37,320,000 Difference 34,989,000 Present Value of Tax Increment 12,178,330 Difference 22,810,670 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 22,810,670 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District Page 51 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 52 Economic Development Authority Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 7b) Title: Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF DistrictPage 53 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Presentation: 2a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed. This evening, youth from SLP High School along with Larry Kraft from iMatter will present the results of the Climate Report Card. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Environment & Sustainability Energy Work Group have been working on a long term project with Xcel Energy, called Partners in Energy. This project is a multi-stakeholder initiative to produce a Climate Action Plan, with various representation from the St. Louis Park community, including youth. As part of the Partners in Energy project, the youth representatives have focused on using materials from a local nonprofit, called iMatter, to score the city on current climate actions and obtain youth signatures asking for the city to support net zero human emissions by 2040. This is one of the goals being set forth by the larger Climate Action Plan (still being finalized and will be presented on April 18th, 2016) as part of the Partners in Energy project. St. Louis Park is one of a few cities that have participated in the Climate Report Card from iMatter. Although the overall grade given to the city using the iMatter methodology is a B-, the report helps us understand our strengths and growth opportunities both short and long term. NEXT STEPS: On April 18th members of the Environment and Sustainability Commission Energy Work Group will have a discussion with the Council on this topic. Discussion will include the iMatter efforts and how they will align with Partners in Energy larger efforts. It is likely that after the April 18th presentation of the project by the Energy Work Group, a request will be made for adoption of a resolution. An example of future goals could include supporting net zero human emissions by 2040 where changes in city operations would be required. Areas of improvement could include: increased renewable energy for city operations and for all community members, continuous tracking of greenhouse gases, and decreasing atmospheric carbon by increasing our urban forest canopy. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: iMatter Report Card iMatter Detailed Report iMatter Petition Template Prepared by: Shannon Pinc, Environment & Sustainability Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director WE, THE YOUTH OF endorse this Climate Report Card & Call for immediate action to protect our future from the Climate Crisis. C ONTACT PERSON: PHONE: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 2 St Louis Park CLIMATE REPORT CARD ZERO EMISSIONS PLAN D- RENEWABLE ENERGY A- WASTE A+ CARBON REMOVAL C YOUTH INVOLVEMEMT Plus 1/2 grade OVERALL GRADE B- ZERO EMISSIONS PLAN 50% Weighting Rapidly reducing emissions is the most important thing we can do to address the climate crisis. RENEWABLE ENERGY 20% Weighting While typically included within a city’s Climate Action Plan, electricity generation caused 32% of US greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 (source: EPA), the largest of any source. That’s why the percent of electricity used by a city that comes from renewable sources is included as a separate grading item. WASTE 20% Weighting Reducing the amount of waste we generate and recycling more of it reduces the amount of greenhouse gases from landfills. Waste reduction is also an indirect indicator that we’re reducing the amount of completely new stuff we’re buying. Production of new stuff can generate a lot of greenhouse gases. CARBON REMOVAL 10% Weighting Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will reduce the impacts of climate change. Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in trees, forests, plants, and soil, mostly through photosynthesis. YOUTH INVOLVEMEMT Half a Grade + The youngest generation will be most impacted by the climate crisis and should be involved when policies are being put in place. A city gets a half grade increase if they have youth involved in advising on or developing climate related policies. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 3 St Louis Park Detail Report -1- For St Louis Park Climate Report Card 1 Report Card Background Working from the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, iMatter developed a Report Card based on the areas a city can impact, and data that is generally publicly available. An A-F grading system evaluates a city's action (or inaction) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels needed to end the climate crisis. Actions taken to improve Report Card grades should focus a city on the right things and at the right levels to make meaningful progress on the climate crisis. And because youth will have to deal with the effects of the climate crisis more than older generations, youth opinion matters. Youth should be involved when policies are being put in place, both so they have a voice, and so they can participate in local solutions. Youth can be partners with local government in creating the will for community change. 1.1 Basis for Report Card Report Card grades are based on real data, the presence of programs with appropriate goals, and concrete actions. To determine appropriate goals, the science from pre-eminent climate scientist, Dr. Jim Hansen, was used. Dr. Hansen, formerly of NASA, led a team that wrote a paper at the end of 2013, which gives a prescription for avoiding the worst consequences of climate change. His team makes the point that we need to keep temperatures roughly within the range of temperatures that led to the rise of human civilization. To do this required a reduction in global emissions of 6% per year starting immediately (meaning 2014/2015) and that we simultaneously take carbon out of the atmosphere with things like reforestation and better soil management. This recipe guides the Report Card grading system. You can find Dr. Hansen's paper here, and a non-technical summary of it here. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 4 St Louis Park Detail Report -2- 1.2 Report Card Sections There are five sections of the report card that are combined into an overall grade. The Report Card itself describes why each of these sections is important. At a high level, for each section, here is what is rewarded:  Zero Emissions Climate Action Plan: When the city's Climate Action Plan gets to net zero human emissions (by 2040 is an A, 2050 a C).  Renewable Energy: When the percent of renewables used to generate a city's electricity is more than the national average, and the percentage is rising.  Waste: When the amount of waste per person is decreasing and the percent of that waste that is recycled or composted is increasing.  Carbon Removal: When there is some kind of a program that will result in more carbon being removed from the atmosphere.  Youth Involvement: A bonus area that rewards (or penalizes) a city 1/2 grade for having youth involved or not involved in advising on or setting climate change related policies and plans. The sections are combined into an overall grade. Weightings are based on the U.S averages for the impact of each area on a typical community's greenhouse gas footprint. Sample grades with weightings Grade Weighting Zero Emissions Climate Action Plan C 50% Renewable Energy % B 20% Waste (Generated/Recycled/Composted) B 20% Carbon Removal D 10% Youth Involvement -½ grade Overall grade C Note: The "Carbon Removal" grade is slightly underweighted compared to an overall U.S impact, but this is because much of the U.S. impact will likely come from areas that may be outside typical city boundaries (e.g., national forests, croplands, etc.) Detail on grade calculations is shown in each grade description section. You can also find a generic description here. 1.3 Advisors In addition to using the leading climate science, some of the most knowledgeable people and organizations on community climate change initiatives have been consulted to develop the Report Card. The following is our list of Advisors. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 5 St Louis Park Detail Report -3-  David Allaway, Policy and Program Analyst, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality  Brian Holland, Director of Climate Programs, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA  Paul Kroening, Supervising Environmentalist, Waste Reduction and Recycling Unit, Hennepin County, MN  Hunter Lovins, President, Natural Capitalism Solutions  Matt McRae, Climate and Energy Analyst, City of Eugene, Oregon  Eli Yewdall, Senior Program Officer, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA  Martha Campbell, Sr. Associate - Communities, Rocky Mountain Institute  Kaitlyn Bunker, Ph.D., Associate, Rocky Mountain Institute  Ryan Griffin, Managing Consultant, See the Forest, LLC The Report Card has also already been endorsed by the following organizations to encourage its use by U.S. communities.  Project Drawdown  Natural Capitalism Solutions  Moms Clean Air Force  Green Schools 2 Overall Grade for St Louis Park = B- 3 Individual Grade Descriptions 3.1 Zero Emissions Plan: D- It's good that St Louis Park has done or is planning on doing a Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The next step to an improved grade is a Climate Action Plan. Climate Action Plan information entered: Link to Greenhouse Gas Inventory (if entered): http://www.regionalindicatorsmn.com/ Link to Climate Action Plan (if entered): Link to Annual Report (if entered): City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 6 St Louis Park Detail Report -4- 3.2 Renewable Energy: A- St Louis Park's renewable energy percentage is unknown, so the state average has been used. If St Louis Park can get this data, then the grade would be increased ½ level. St Louis Park received 21.31% of its energy from renewable sources in 2014 and 21.79% in 2013. In 2014 this differs from the national average by 7.84 percentage point(s). The grade is as follows:  F, 5% or more below the national average (includes 5% below)  D-, 5%-2% below the national average (includes 2% below)  C-, 2% below to 3% over the national average (includes 3% above)  B-, 3% to 7% above the national average  A-, 7% or more above the national average (includes 7% above) St Louis Park's renewable energy percentage changed by -0.48 percentage point(s) from 2013 to 2014. This did not change the grade. This is the formula used: If a city's percentage increases by at least 0.5% year over year, the grade is increased 1/3 level, if it decreases by 0.5% or more year over year, the grade is decreased 1/3 level. If a city's percentage increases more than 2% year over year, it moves up a whole grade, unless it is already at A, in which case it moves up to A+. Renewable energy data entered: Where renewable energy data came from (if entered): From the state information provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that iMatter has on its website National renewable percentages for reference: 2014: 13.47 2012: 12.46 2013: 13.09 2011: 12.71 3.3 Waste: A+ There are two main factors to the Waste grade: 1. Waste Created per person. Waste created or generated equals the waste disposed (in a landfill or burned) plus the waste recovered (recycled or composted). Higher grades are received the more this is reduced. 2. Recovery rate: This is the percent of the total waste created that is either recycled or composted. It is calculated by dividing the total weight of materials recycled and composted by the total amount of waste generated in a year. Higher grades are received the more this is increased. Here is the data calculated for St Louis Park:  Waste Created per person (tons) in 2014: 0.16  Waste Created per person (tons) in 2013: 0.17 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 7 St Louis Park Detail Report -5-  Change in Waste Created per person from 2013 to 2014: -5.88%  Recovery rate in 2014: 47.73%  Recovery rate in 2013: 40.96%  Recovery rate change from 2013 to 2014: 6.77 percentage points Waste grades are calculated using the following table: Recovery Rate = Total Recycling & Composting / Total Waste Generated Grading is based on the percent increase or decrease in the rate (e.g. going fr om 10% recovery rate to 12% is a 2% increase.) But when 50% overall recovery rate has been reached, then the lowest set of grades a community can receive is column 4 (and 70% is column 5.) Waste Created per person Grading is based on the annual percent increase or decrease in the weight of waste per person 1% or more decrease 0-1% decrease 0-1% increase 1-3% increase or Greater than 50% RR More than 3% increase or Greater than 70% RR 2% or more increase F D- D C- C 0-2% increase (includes 0) D- D C- C B- 0-2.5% decrease D C- C B- B 2.5-5% decrease C- C B- B A- 5% or more decrease C B- B A- A When a city reaches 70% recovery rate, if they increase their recovery rate by more than 1.5% in a year, then their score is increased 1/3 level (i.e. A- to A, A to A+) St Louis Park has a curbside recycling program, which is good. If it did not, then grades would be reduced by at least 1/3 level. St Louis Park has a curbside organics (composting) program so the grade from the table is increased by 1/3 level. Waste related data entered: Total waste (tons) in 2014: 7741.69 Total waste (tons) in 2013: 8101.68 Population in 2014: 47502 Population in 2013: 46908 Recycling tons in 2014: 3428.18 Recycling tons in 2013: 3318.5 Composting tons in 2014: 266.79 Composting tons in 2013: 0 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 8 St Louis Park Detail Report -6- Where waste data came from (if entered): Shannon Pinc provided it. It comes from data the city reports to Hennepin County. It is not on a website. 3.4 Carbon Removal: C St Louis Park has a program that will contribute to removing carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore the grade starts at a C. St Louis Park's grade could be increased by 1/3 level if carbon storage capacity was included in the program's metrics. It does not appear that St Louis Park met its program metrics. If it does meet its metrics the grade would increase one whole level. Link to Program used in this section (if provided): No single website or page to direct towards. According to Shannon Pinc, there are several programs, such as tree preservation & planting, as well as a strong park program. More detail on tree planting was received from Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator. Overall SLP doing well on public lands planting 500 per year, though losing tree biomass, and not as well with private trees, though tree sale program is helping. Looking to start measuring biomass in next year or so. 3.5 Youth Involvement: Plus 1/2 grade St Louis Parkhas a climate change related Youth Council or Youth Group of some sort participating in, or advising on setting up policy, or has youth on a climate change related group or task force. Therefore, St Louis Park's overall Climate Report Card grade is increased by ½ level. Link to Youth Climate Group (or Climate Group with youth participation) if provided: http://www.stlouispark.org/sustainable-slp.html City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 9 St Louis Park Detail Report -7- Background Information and Resources 4 Zero Emissions Climate Action Plan St Louis Park Grade = D- Rapidly reducing emissions is the most important thing we can do to address the climate crisis, so a Climate Action Plan that gets to net zero emissions is the most heavily weighted grade in the Report Card. Zero emissions, or at least net zero emissions is the goal. This means completely cutting a city's carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have shown (here's one) that it is doable. By saying "net zero," it leaves a bit of practical wiggle room for some continued but drastically reduced emissions, as long as they're balanced out by natural factors that remove carbon pollution from the atmosphere (the Carbon Removal part of the Report Card), or possibly by purchasing a small amount of carbon offsets. 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Inventory St Louis Park has done a Greenhouse Gas Inventory, great! 4.2 Climate Action Plan St Louis Parkdoes not have a Climate Action Plan. Hundreds of cities now do. Here are examples of Climate Action Plans  Eugene, OR - note that Appendix 7 of the plan is a Greenhouse Gas Inventory.  Minneapolis, MN - Greenhouse gas inventory  Minneapolis, MN - Climate Action Plan  Burlington, VT – Climate Action Plan  The EPA website has links to many greenhouse gas inventories and climate action plans.  In the Carbonn database, affiliated with ICLEI, many cities report the targets for their Climate Action Plans, and sometimes their progress. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 10 St Louis Park Detail Report -8-  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has an excellent set of tools and case studies on developing a climate action plan. 16 communities were recently recognized by the US White House as Climate Action Champions for leadership on climate change. One of the 16, Montpelier, VT, has launched Net Zero Montpelier in an effort to become the first carbon neutral capital city in the US by 2030. Measuring-Up-2015, a report by ICLEI and the World Wildlife Federation, explores Climate Action plans in 4 of the 34 US cities who have recently pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. Here you can find case studies for Atlanta, Cincinnati, Minneapolis and Portland. 4.2.1 Goods produced outside St Louis Park Most inventories of greenhouse gas emissions count only emissions generated from sources inside a community. But by purchasing goods and services, a community's citizens contribute to emissions around the world, in the places where those goods or services are produced. Calculating emissions from goods and services produced outside the community is difficult and the approaches for doing so are newer and require more estimation. But it is good for a community and its citizens to be thinking about these emissions as well. Therefore a city gets some extra credit for thinking about this in their Climate Action Plan or trying to calculate it in their Greenhouse Gas Inventory. This is important, because in 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated that 42% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from the provision of food or goods (see chart below). And in most cities, a large portion of the food and goods come from outside the city. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 11 St Louis Park Detail Report -9- Also, 90% or more of the greenhouse gas impact of food and products happens before they are purchased. Recycling and waste management alone will not solve this problem. We must think creatively about what we buy and eat and how we can positively influence others. The good news is that technological and cultural innovations are already positioning us for reduced consumption in a still thriving economy. "The Sharing Economy", as has been coined, could greatly reduce unnecessary personal ownership. Technology has enabled peer-to-peer connections in everything from sharing a car or a bike to seldom used tools. The National League of Cities recently published a report on how city government can embrace and foster the sharing economy. 4.3 Annual Report on Climate Action Plan While creating an annual report is no small task, the benefits can be monumental. The first of these benefits is that the annual report is a clear and consistent internal accountability mechanism. It is not about only highlighting accomplishments, but also illustrating where things didn't go as planned or opportunities still exist to improve. This level of transparency may not come easy, but many cities have been successful at creating annual reports and using them as a vehicle to engage their populations environmentally. For example, the Annual Report on the San Ramon, CA, Climate Action Plan, covered everything from overall emissions reductions to new development plans, to land use and transportation strategies. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 12 St Louis Park Detail Report -10- 4.4 Climate Recovery Ordinance A Climate Recovery Ordinance is basically a Climate Action Plan that has been made into a law. Eugene, Oregon is an example of a place where this has happened. Here is the press release from iMatter partner Our Children's Trust on the ordinance. Here is the ordinance itself. 5 Renewable Energy St Louis Park Grade = A- While typically included within a city's Climate Action Plan, electricity generation caused 32% of US greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 (source: EPA), the largest of any source. That's why it's included as a separate grading item. Finding renewable energy data While state data has been used to calculate a Renewable Energy score on the St Louis Park Climate Report Card, it is not ideal. If St Louis Park city government doesn't know, utility companies can provide the percent renewable electricity in the local portfolio. Many states have set Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that will mandate that this percent hit a certain target by a certain year. Regional differences often cause cities' renewable percentage to vary within the same state. Understanding the state RPS and how the state is tracking against it is a good start. Some states have set much more aggressive standards than others. Hawaii, for example is leading the nation with a 70% renewable target by 2030 and 100% renewable by 2040. 5.1 Renewable Energy Definition Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources that are naturally replenished on a human timescale* such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat. Another way of thinking about it is that renewable resources are not depleted though their use. For the Report Card, we use the US Energy Information Administration's (US EIA) classification system for defining what is renewable energy. They include the following in their renewable energy figures: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 13 St Louis Park Detail Report -11-  Hydroelectric Power  Geothermal  Solar  Wind  Biomass (includes biofuels, wood, waste) The source of our national data also comes from the US EIA. * - Note that on very long timescales (millions and millions of years, fossil fuels are technically replenishable. But not in any way that is useful to humanity. 5.2 St Louis Park Compared to National Renewable Energy Average According to the data input, St Louis Park's renewable energy is 7% or more above the national average. Great job! 6 Waste St Louis Park Grade = A+ Reducing the amount of waste we generate and recycling more of it reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from landfills. Waste reduction is also an indirect indicator that we're reducing the amount of completely new stuff we're buying. Buying lots of new stuff can significantly increase the greenhouse gases generated in the production of that stuff. This is often referred to as "Materials" or "Materials and Waste." Reduction of waste has three main impacts on greenhouse gases. 1. Reduced amounts of waste in a landfill, especially food waste, reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (methane) given off by the landfill (according to the EPA, waste in landfills generates 2% of our greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.). 2. The production and transport of the food and products (materials) we buy is estimated to cause 42% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (see "Background note on greenhouse gas emissions" below). Less overall waste created likely would mean we are buying less stuff that causes greenhouse gases when it is produced and delivered to the market. 3. More recycling typically reduces greenhouse gases, because it generally requires a lot less greenhouse gases to recycle materials than to create new materials. The EPA has estimated that moving to 100% recycling would result in a decrease in our national greenhouse gas emissions of 6%. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 14 St Louis Park Detail Report -12- More and more cities and towns are adopting aggressive zero waste initiatives.  Here are 10 major US cities with zero waste goals  Three other lesser known cities with zero waste goals  Info about SF, NY, and some international cities with zero waste goals  Small cities solve big problems - a good USA Today article from last year. 7 Carbon Removal St Louis Park Grade = C Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will reduce the impacts of climate change. Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in trees, forests, plants, and soil, mostly through photosynthesis - the process by which carbon is stored in plants and oxygen is released into the atmosphere. 7.1 Trees Urban forestry is a popular method of carbon sequestration within city limits. Maintaining a healthy tree canopy has myriad benefits in addition to reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and positively impacting climate change. There are some terrific free tools available to cities.  iTree, peer-reviewed software created by the USDA Forest Service, provides urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools through a combination of tree inventory and use of satellite analysis. iTree provides a way to regularly count trees and concretely assess the benefits they provide.  EarthDefine is building the largest collection of high-resolution land cover information for the contiguous United States. This dataset currently covers over 233 million acres and is continuously expanding. In St. Louis Park, MN, using the above two tools, the city forestry department uses a combination of a physical street tree inventory, biomass from LIDAR satellite images, and a Geographic Information System (GIS) Asset Management database for its trees. While the number of trees important, it is their overall biomass that largely determines their carbon removal capabilities. Policies could be put in place that set targets for biomass with language on carbon removal. They could also include language to preserve trees in parks and redevelopment zones, and implement a more robust replanting policy. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 15 St Louis Park Detail Report -13- Atlanta, like many cities, has a formal policy requiring a permit for tree removal on private property, and ensuring that replanting happens. Burlington, VT has a policy for the city to plant 588 trees per year. See pages 18 and 23 of the Burlington Climate Action Plan for more information, including a great description on the many benefits of effectively managing trees. 7.2 Soil Here is a great article by Judith Schwartz, author or the book Cows Save the Planet and Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth that describes how better managing soil can play a significant role in addressing the climate crisis. 8 Other great resources for cities Note that all materials linked to are either publicly available and/or have been provided with the consent of the creating organization.  Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) has an excellent new Community Resource Guide that provides a blueprint to launch a community energy transformation. Additional resources from RMI include: o A strategy presentation supporting the climate action plan of Fort Collins, CO. o A spreadsheet of specific tactics for Fort Collins o This page has links to the full set of community resources available from Rocky Mountain Institute.  Redstone Strategy Group is a leading advisor to private foundations and non-profits around the world, and created this excellent report for Menlo Spark, an organization looking to lead Menlo Park, CA, to climate neutrality by 2025.  Natural Capitalism Solutions created a Climate Protection Manual for Cities that takes cities through the steps needed to conduct a greenhouse gas inventory, create a climate action plan, and measure results. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 16 Name of Petition Gatherer: ____________________ School: ____________________ Date(s) Gathered: ____________________ Climate scientists have shown how to end the climate crisis. But there is no more time for arguments or delays. So I join with my fellow students to hold St. Louis Park accountable to do its part and reach net zero human emissions by 2040. Name Email Signature Age 1 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 2 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 3 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 4 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 5 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 6 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 7 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 8 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 9 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 10 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 11 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 12 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 13 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 14 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ 15 ¨ Under 13 ¨ 13-18 ¨ 19+ City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2a) Title: Climate Report Card iMatter SLP High School Youth Page 17 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Presentation: 2b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Recognition of Donations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda: From Amount For Arvig Enterprises, Inc. $10,000 value 144-fiber strand cable to be installed in one city- owned conduit Common Hope Staff $40 Westwood Hills Nature Center for care and management of the program animals in honor of Lynn Brysiewicz Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Presentation: 2c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: ParkTV Local Programming Month Proclamation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor is asked to read the Proclamation designating April 2016 as ParkTV Local Programming Month. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUMMARY: Each year, ParkTV cablecasts hundreds of hours of recorded or live original programming, events, sports, news, talk shows, performances and more. In addition to being cablecast, the city’s Comcast cable channels and programming are available on the city’s website via live stream or on demand. Content is also available on YouTube and distributed through the city’s social media sites. In addition to the city’s dedicated ParkTV staff, this programming is made possible by hundreds of volunteers each year who contribute or create their own programming for cablecast on the city’s public access channels. ParkTV On Location staff is further supported by volunteer announcers and crew members for many of the sporting events covered each year. These volunteers range from teenagers to adults, from the inexperienced to those with decades of experience. This year, ParkTV is recognizing these individuals and their commitment to local programming at an event Wednesday, April 6, 2016, 5 – 7 p.m. at St. Louis Park City Hall. This event kicks off “ParkTV Local Programming Month” to recognize the volunteers and contributors, shar e highlights of their programming from the past year, and encourage networking among these many talented and dedicated community members. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proclamation Prepared by: Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 2c) Page 2 Title: ParkTV Local Programming Month Proclamation PROCLAMATION ParkTV Local Programming Month WHEREAS, local access cable television programming is an important resource provided in our community and an important part of our residents’ everyday lives; and WHEREAS, local programming supports the city’s strategic direction to remain a connected and engaged community; and WHEREAS, more than 100 community members contributed content, time and services in 2015 to the city’s public access programming; and WHEREAS, the ParkTV On-Location staff was fully supported by volunteer announcers and crew members, NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St. Louis Park wish to proclaim the month of April 2016 as “ParkTV Local Programming Month” and call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the quality programming produced by dozens of dedicated residents and staff, and to recognize the contributions that they make every day to discovering, recording, reporting, editing, cablecasting, and web streaming the stories and events that make St. Louis Park such a remarkable community. WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 21st day of March, 2016. _____________________________________ Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 8, 2016 The meeting convened at 6:39 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh) Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Batra). Guest: Vic Moore (Franzen Moore, Peggy Flannigan (City of Hopkins), Ron Latz (Senator), Gail Dorfman (Met Council), Marion Greene (Commissioner, Hennepin County). 1. 2016 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Mayor Spano introduced the item. The Council and guests briefly discussed each item on the list of Prioritization of 2016 Legislative Agenda Items, which included the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Project; affordable housing bonding support; establishing a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) affordable housing fund; railway safety and hazardous materials and oil train operations; body and squad car dash cameras; Metropolitan Council governance; Minnesota Community Forestry Partnership Act; levy limits and unfunded mandate. In response to Ms. Flannigan’s question about whistle quiet zones, Mayor Spano stated that the Council is revisiting the topic. Councilmember Sanger stated additional research needs to be done and decisions should not be made until updated research is complete. Councilmember Miller explained that the track in question is different than other tracks due to the curves so what works for other tracks will not necessarily work for this one. Councilmember Mavity asked for clarification on the top areas for bonding and if there is anything extra the Council can do to move things along. Also, she explained that the affordable housing piece is linked to the SWLRT Project and addresses the housing gap. Mayor Spano clarified that the City has been looking into “affordable” for an average family of four in the City based on set percentages. He explained that this particular policy and idea received national attention. In response to Ms. Flannigan’s question about the number of ash trees in the City, Ms. Walsh responded approximately 20%. Ms. Walsh noted that the Council recently discussed treatment programs. The City is going to offer treatment of boulevard trees at no cost to the residents. To treat the trees on private property, the City is going to allow residents to piggyback on the contract to receive the treatment at cost. The challenge faced by the City is that cutting all the ash trees down would result in massive holes in the tree canopy. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 The Council and legislators discussed ground water and processing it for safe drinking. Mr. Harmening stated that, especially due to the Reilly Superfund site, the City is being held to standards that were developed 30 years ago and should be revisited to ensure the city is meeting current standards. However, there is a lack of interest on the part of the agencies to revisit these standards with a fresh perspective. Ms. Dorfman asked for clarification on rail safety. Mr. Harmening stated it’s a joint effort between the City, railroad, State, and City of Minneapolis. He explained that this issue deserves continued scrutiny and the City wants to be a part of that effort. Fortunately, fewer oil trains are traveling through the city due to completion of rail line work elsewhere. Senator Latz asked if Met Council is taking a position on staggered terms. The Council and legislators discussed different cities and their positions on this issue. Referencing the study that showed the trend on the suburbanization of poverty, Ms. Dorfman asked if the City is seeing an increase in homelessness and poverty. Chief Luse stated the City’s police force has not noticed an increase in homelessness. He explained kids are couch surfing and there is the usual homelessness along railways, parks, and trails, but homelessness has not been an increased issue for the City. Councilmember Sanger suggested highlighting transportation and transit funding. Senator Latz explained there is currently surplus for transportation and transit funding because one was not passed last year. He stated there is a big battle between greater Minnesota and the cities and a big battle between transit and roads and bridges. Rural Minnesota is where all the attention is currently heading. SWLRT is certainly going to be in the mix, and the Governor will have to make this project a priority to be granted. Senator Dibble is committed to getting SWLRT funded. Mr. Harmening explained that 12 years ago, when Glencoe was being discussed, $700,000 was set aside to help with that issue. If the money is not utilized in five years, the funding is lost. Mr. Loren was able to get this money reauthorized, but the funds will expire again in July. Mr. Loren explained the background on how he was able to get this reauthorized and put a hold on the money. He noted that’s the plan he is looking to use again for rail, and the City could put up the $700,000 to get the ball rolling. This will be discussed further down the line with Senator Latz but it’s going to require the Council to prioritize what’s most important on these requests. Mr. Loren suggested that he really focus in on the City’s highest priority so the City can work that priority. The next priority would be grade separation on Beltline. Mayor Spano clarified that SWLRT is just the vehicle as the City has been trying to work with these trails for quite some time. Councilmember Mavity stated that fixing Beltline is absolutely essential with or without light rail. Councilmember Miller asked if trail crossings should be pulled out to separate the issue. Mr. Loren responded that he can get the objective across without taking it apart. Mayor Spano clarified that the trail crossings are not just a City issue, but a regional issue as residents from the entire metro area come to use the trails. Mr. Locke stated there is a typo in the document on the regional trail way pass, “stairways” needs to be added to the funding. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 Councilmember Sanger stated another issue is fiscal disparities and how much the City’s contribution has gone up. She explained the City’s tax base has increased, which is a good thing; however, the City has more operating expenses and increased wear and tear on infrastructure yet the City is still paying large fiscal disparities. The residents are paying high property taxes. Mr. Loren stated that this issue could possibly be revisited. Mr. Harmening stated the only way change will happen is if you look retrospectively not retroactively. The Council discussed possible ways to change the procedure. Mr. Harmening mentioned County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 to Commissioner Greene and the roads surrounding that area. In addition, some functional issues need to be addressed on Minnetonka Boulevard, such as bike safety issues, drainage, and pedestrian needs along the corridor. In response to CSAH 25, Commissioner Greene suggested the City take the lead and the County will then support. Mr. Harmening stated that conversation has started. Councilmember Mavity stated she participated in a Board that worked on early childhood issues and early education. Ms. Flannigan explained that a group of public and private providers got together to have a discussion about early childhood education and what things were needed from the State to make the process work more efficiently. The Board then wrote a letter to the Governor to explain their findings and what was needed to get the process going. Councilmember Brausen asked how the Council can support the legislators. Ms. Flannigan stated open communication would help them be successful. In addition, getting the priority items heard as quickly as possible is the biggest priority, so it is helpful to the legislators if the Council is available for questions at any hour. Commissioner Greene passed out the 2016 State Legislative Platform for Hennepin County 2. Water Production Capacity/Supply Update Mr. Hanson presented the staff report regarding the water production capacity/ supply update. Mr. Hanson explained the City’s water management system. Water capacity is calculated by using the firm system capacity, which is a factor of safety. He explained that the City’s current production capacity verses production demand is calculated as shown in the chart in the report. The City is currently at about 80% capacity versus demand, which is very good. There is a lot of development coming to the City in the future. The discussion point of this evening is to reassure the Council that the City is sitting very well even with the development potential over the next five years. The City does have projects to include conservation efforts that will assist the City with staying in the 90%. In response to Mr. Harmening’s suggestion regarding projects in the works, Mr. Locke went over the new developments in the City that would affect water supply/demand over the next five years. Mr. Harmening thought it was important for the Council to hear about the growth because it’s important when discussing this item. Mayor Spano asked for clarification on Novartis and how that affected the numbers. Mr. Hanson said that it affected 6-7% of the City’s water supply. Councilmember Miller asked for clarification on the Metropolitan Council numbers. Mr. Hanson explained that an engineering analysis can be done on the City’s numbers; however, with the Metropolitan Council’s numbers, it’s a projection, or estimate, not an engineering analysis. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 Mayor Spano restated if all developments are constructed as planned, the City would be at 93%; however, the goal is to stay below 90%. As far as ways to save water, Mr. Hanson highlighted water conservation efforts. He suggested being more active on a sprinkling ban. He would prefer not to include emergency connections in water capacity because it doesn’t help in a natural disaster. Emergency connections do, however, add value if there is an equipment failure. He explained that emergency connections can help from a demand prospective, not a production prospective. In reference to exploring an increase of capacity at SLP10 and SLP15, Mr. Hanson explained that these two wells use the same aquifer and are limited by the capacity of the Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment, because it can only handle a certain capacity. Therefore, it can be assumed that water production could be increased if a vessel was added to the GAC treatment system. Mr. Hanson explained another option to increase production is to bring SLP6 online. Currently, this well is not being used due to Reilly-related water quality concerns. This option would most likely be very expensive because it would require treating the water with some sort of carbon treatment and possibly VOC treatment. Councilmember Hallfin asked about SLP4 regarding the volatile organic compound (VOC). He asked for clarification and what happens once it’s filtered. Mr. Hanson explained that the treatment doesn’t filter out VOC’s, which in this instance is vinyl chloride (unrelated to Reilly). Vinyl chloride is naturally occurring; however, the City has an increased concentration associated with a few companies that caused additional releases into the groundwater. The responsible parties may have been identified; enforcement and remediation recovery is in process. The City knows what treatment is required. The City is monitoring, in addition to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), to be doubly sure that the issue is under control. The Department of Health (MDH) is onboard to plan the first steps of treatment. The City is working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MDH, and MPCA, because all three agencies must be onboard for any modifications for treatment at SLP4. The MDH is helping to push to get firm plans in place to navigate the bureaucracy, because the MDH knows the City is trying to be proactive. Mr. Harmening stated that SLP4 is a significant producer so we are trying to correct the problem before it worsens. The three suspected companies that are alleged to be responsible are no longer in the City as they are defunct. Councilmember Sanger asked about getting water from the pumps to the new developments and if there are materials and the means to replace these materials that are part of the system. Mr. Hanson stated the City has started working on the worst-case scenario distribution lines. When you have a new demand in an isolated location of the City, part of the development is to increase the lines to ensure adequate water supply. Mr. Hanson explained that he is comfortable with where the City is at with regard to the distribution system. Councilmember Sanger asked about charging higher water rates for excessive use in the summer (for irrigation) and if it applies to all land uses. Mr. Hanson stated that it’s already in place for commercial uses so this component is for single-family residential. The commercial locations such as golf courses, large corporations, and multi-family apartment homes are already doing this as they have two separate meters for tracking. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 Councilmember Mavity stated she is concerned that current capacity is only reflected on how many pumps the City has and upstream users are limiting what downstream users can do. At some point, the City cannot just keep pumping more out to anticipate the developments in the future. She wants to make sure that the Council is thinking in more far-reaching, serious ways on how to impose and treat water as the valuable asset that it is and put in conservation practices that will shift the whole strategy in fees, requirements for developers, and how to recapture water. Mr. Hanson stated the City is not on the leading edge; however, the City is above average because of the tiered rate structure used; the more you use, the more you pay. Metropolitan Council and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) do monitor the aquifer and uses and that’s why Metropolitan Council is pushing for more surface options. The City is looking at a connection with Minneapolis to have the ability to purchase surface water, which is more expensive, but possible. Mayor Spano restated that conservation efforts are being employed, but the City needs to be more aggressive. Mr. Harmening stated there are several ways to increase conservation, such as education on use, physical things that can be done with storm water, reuse of gray water for bathrooms, and increased rates for excessive use. Councilmember Brausen asked for clarification on the rates. Councilmember Lindberg agreed and stated he would like to see the City’s rates compared to other cities. Councilmember Brausen stated he supports the suggestions by staff and he is wholly in favor of charging an irrigation surplus for watering lawns as it should be priced as a luxury item. Mr. Harmening stated, in response to Councilmember Lindberg’s question, that the City does permit irrigation systems, but it would probably be a guess on whom and how many due to the length of time. Mr. Harmening suggested first quarter water usage be reviewed, which is used to develop the sewer rate, and anything above that during summer would be at the highest rate. Mr. Hanson explained the idea behind a tiered approach using irrigation levels. Mr. Hanson stated the first goal of tonight’s discussion is awareness and the second goal is discussing the possible next steps to meet the projected increases in demand (including production and conservation). He stated the Council has already requested more education. In addition, he gathered feedback from the Council regarding rates. The Council is in favor of further evaluating rates as a conservation tool. Staff will work with finance and come back to present their findings to further discuss the irrigation issue. Councilmember Miller stated that he would like the opportunity to bring up the water quality education piece to show residents what’s being done. He thinks the Council has an opportunity to step up and he would like to suggest this discussion for another Study Session topic. 3. 2016 Pavement Management and Connect the Park! Construction Project Update Mr. Harmening stated that staff is getting close to deciding on a project. He noted there are very specific policy questions; one relates to the replacement of water services that could impact trees. Also, staff is requesting to add a sidewalk on 34th Street from Aquila Lane to Texas Avenue to facilitate connectivity. Mr. Sullivan explained the project and that staff has been diving in deeper and trying to streamline the process. There are three issues for discussion: pavement rehab, water main replacement on a few streets and some street narrowing ideas, and, some sidewalk segments that are being proposed. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 As far as street reconstruction, there is an aging infrastructure, which was built in approximately 1960. The method in which this is replaced needs to be decided, as some of the water pipes will disturb some large trees. Additionally, when the water main is replaced, the curb infrastructure is disturbed, so one curb line needs to be removed. The location of the new curb needs to be decided. Mr. Sullivan discussed the plans for the section of Utah Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to 32nd Street. This area has experienced Dutch elm disease so there is a large variety of tree species. The copper water services could be replaced, as they are 65 years old, however, replacing these can bring about challenges. He explained the importance of the curb stop. Every home and business has a curb stop, as it’s the first way to turn off water to the home. For the first alternative, Mr. Sullivan explained that the curb stop is replaced and the water service connection is moved to a different location on the water main and the service is looped around the tree roots, making a connection further into the resident’s property. This option could potentially save the tree; however, the challenge is that the residence is impacted. Additionally, with this option, city-owned equipment is being installed on private property, which could present challenges. Mr. Sullivan discussed the second option, which is installation of a new water main under the street and a 3-foot “patch” piece. This option is less work and more cost effective, however, it leaves a 65-year old water service in the ground that would need to be replaced in the future. Mr. Sullivan stated that staff is looking for direction as their main focus in this project has been to save the trees. Staff will work with Mr. Vaughn and the homeowner to communicate about the trees and whether they should remain or what can be done later on. Councilmember Brausen asked about the projected life of a new copper water service. Mr. Sullivan stated that the average is approximately 50-70 years. Councilmember Mavity asked for clarification about the numbers and Councilmember Brausen confirmed that he was asking about an all new curb stop and water service, not just the patch. To put the project in context, Councilmember Lindberg confirmed that there are 35 boulevard trees and if we replace these lines, 20 trees would have to go so this project greatly impacts the canopy and aesthetic views of this neighborhood. With the reality that the City now owns the segment of water service lines, there is a benefit to replace them now and not cut into the new infrastructure in the near future. He explained that he wants to find a balance and ultimately land somewhere in the middle and clearly communicate to residents what’s going to happen in the future, as some residents are confused. In response to Mayor Spano’s questions, Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the entire area in question is a block and a half. Councilmember Sanger asked if the same solution needs to be applied for all of the houses. Mr. Sullivan responded, no, the plan is to create a hierarchy. Councilmember Sanger stated that she does not want to put curb stops on private property. She suggested that each resident might prefer a different option due to landscaping, as there is not one solution that applies to all the residents. Councilmember Lindberg stated his agreement that some tier suggestions should be decided by the Council. He suggested that staff present some targeted solutions to the homeowners. Councilmember Lindberg stated that the City now owns the infrastructure, therefore, the City has the responsibility to get it right the first time. Councilmember Lindberg explained the priority is maintaining the urban canopy but that being said, give staff deference to go to homeowners with alternatives to discuss and help make a decision. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 Councilmember Mavity suggested the Council proceed cautiously in reference to the budget. She explained that budget parameters should be set for the staff to follow. The Council discussed the different alternatives and the cost differences. To replace the copper water services is approximately $1000 and adding a piece to the current line would be about $200-300. In response to Councilmember Sanger’s question, Mr. Sullivan explained that transplanting the trees are not an option due to several unfavorable factors. Mr. Harmening stated that staff will write up some language and bring it back to the Council for feedback. Then staff will be directed to bring these options to the residents for discussion. Ms. Heiser explained that the City is tearing out the curb for the water main on 33rd Street and 34th Street. This is an opportunity to review and narrow the street at no extra cost to the City. Mr. Sullivan stated that narrowing the street has a traffic calming effect and the City is reducing the amount of hard surface, which costs less to maintain. Mr. Sullivan suggested 33rd Street be reduced to 30 feet and 34th Street be reduced to 28 feet. He noted both reductions would still enable parking on both sides of the street. Councilmember Lindberg stated that he has received a lot of feedback from residents on this issue and wants to respond to that feedback. One theme is concern for traffic in the area, which includes vehicle and operational ability such as plows. Councilmember Lindberg explained that staff has discussed this scenario and has found that 28 feet is more than adequate. School bus operations need to be followed up on as well so he asked staff to work on that issue so that he has the background information to present to residents. Councilmember Sanger stated there is a problem when the sidewalk gets to the bridge by the creek. She explained that there was a suggestion to wait on sidewalks and instead add a bike path. Her preference would be to approve the sidewalk all the way up to the bridge and not drag it out. In response to Councilmember Sanger’s concern regarding informing the residents, Mr. Sullivan explained that there have been two open houses, and a mailing was sent out that asked for attendance at the meeting. The vetting process has been fair. Councilmember Lindberg stated that the residents have been very informed and engaged. Councilmember Lindberg stated the bridge over the creek needs to be replaced. Mr. Sullivan explained that when the bridge work happens, it will be a large public process. The City needs to spend the appropriate amount of money to make the solution last the next five years without spending too much because it will potentially be torn out in five years. Mr. Sullivan discussed the ideas staff has for this bridge area. There are five homeowners who will be effected if the street is narrowed. Councilmember Lindberg explained that this solution makes sense and provides good connections. He is supportive of putting this forward, however, these homeowners need to be on notice because of the reduction in parking and street size to give them the opportunity to discuss this further. The public hearing is scheduled for February 29th. Ms. Heiser explained what will be up for vote at the public hearing and the reasoning for the timing of the meeting. 4. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 16 & 22, 2016 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for February 16 and 22, 2016. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 Councilmember Lindberg stated there is a side conversation about the dynamic of living streets and community connectedness. He suggested putting some policies together surrounding that idea to bring some formality to the changes. Councilmember Sanger stated she is concerned with the timing for discussions regarding the proposed additions to Connect the Park! She stated that she would like the Council to bring it back for discussion soon. Mayor Spano suggested the Council consider having a Youth Advisory Commission. He would like to discuss how to start engaging young members to guide and shape what’s going on in the City for the future. Councilmember Mavity suggested a youth summit. Mayor Spano stated he would like to bring this topic to a Study Session. Councilmember Miller voiced his support for both Mayor Spano’s and Councilmember Mavity’s ideas and, additionally, would like to discuss the possibility of a teen center. Councilmember Brausen suggested the Council figure out an active mechanism to involve the Environment and Sustainability Commission to get their feedback as the City currently does not have a standard mechanism. 5. Planning Commission Interviews The Council discussed interviews for the Planning Commission. After a vote, the Council came to the consensus that Torrey Kanne is the number one candidate for the position and Brad Carter is the runner up. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) In reference to the Hennepin County legislative platform, Councilmember Mavity stated that light rail is not listed as their top priority. Mr. Harmening stated he will look into that issue. Councilmember Mavity wanted to raise a few issues with staff in the written report about the 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment. She explained it appears that the developer, Weidner Apartment Homes, is changing decisions that have previously been acted upon by the Council. These decisions include the color, the materials, and the staircases. She explained that she is not comfortable with these changes moving forward without asking staff for clarifications on these issues. In reference to naming the light rail stations, Councilmember Mavity wanted to clarify it was decided that station names are the street name only, without the street, avenue or boulevard designation. Regarding the Metropolitan Council governance issue, Mr. Harmening explained that Minnetonka adopted a resolution to go along with Metro Cities’ governance, and he was contacted to ask if the Council would support a similar resolution. Mayor Spano and Councilmember Mavity stated they do not support a resolution on the issue. The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 9 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2016 Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. Request to Extend Preliminary Development Agreement with PLACE 6. Proposed Allocation of 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds 7. PLACE Grant Application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program 8. SWLRT Updates 9. Vescio’s/Valu Stay Redevelopment Proposal 10. 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 16, 2016 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Financial Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guest: Brian Recker with RJM, Chad Nicholls with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association, and John Basil with the Hockey Association. 1. Outdoor Arena Project Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and reviewed results of the bids received for the outdoor arena project. She noted the bids did not come in on budget, and added that the reason for this was mainly because of the roof design and ADA compliance issues. Brian Recker, RJM, explained the roof structure is unique and customized, and bids were within the appropriate range, but were higher than expected. Mr. Heintz explained the total cost of the project is now $8.51 million. He noted the various areas where funding will be provided including G.O. bonds, grants and rebates, value engineering, Hockey Association donations, the park improvement fund, and general fund. Mr. Harmening stated the improvement fund is doing well, and in 2015, $825,000 went into the park dedication funds. He added these funds have not been designated for any other projects at this time. Councilmember Lindberg asked about the G.O. bonds and if a levy increase would be needed. Mr. Harmening explained the first payment on the bonds would not be until 2018, so a levy increase could begin in 2017 and then increase over time. Mr. Heintz stated the increase would be approximately $35 per year, for a median income home. Councilmember Sanger pointed out the most current bid represents a huge increase for the project and asked staff for information on alternative roofs and/or solutions. Ms. Walsh noted that Edina’s similar project included use of a metal roof. She added if St. Louis Park pursued a metal roof, the project cost would decrease by $1 million. The other alternative City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 would be to not include a roof at all; however, that would mean the structure would be used exclusively as an ice rink, with no turf, or drain tile, and would take away any options for other activities to be conducted on it. Mr. Becker stated metal is the most economical choice, however, materials are limited. Councilmember Sanger stated she is not comfortable going ahead with the project at this time, especially since it will only serve a small amount of the City’s population. Councilmember Mavity asked if the City would need to repay the Hockey Association if the project does not move forward. Ms. Walsh stated none of the grant funds have been spent and the majority of the design has already been completed. Mayor Spano asked if the design fees would also be figured into the project costs. Ms. Walsh stated the project did allow for some design fees. She cautioned the Council that construction costs are not going down and neither is the price of steel. Councilmember Miller said after discussing the project, he is very uncomfortable spending this amount of money for a small number of people in the community, noting there may be other opportunities to use these funds in St. Louis Park, and not just on this project. Chad Nicholls, St. Louis Park Hockey Association, commented that December was a record month and revenues have increased every year. When asked if the Association could contribute more to the project, Mr. Nicholls noted this would need to be discussed with the membership; however, the term could possibly be extended over more years. Councilmember Lindberg asked how many months the ice would be in use. Ms. Walsh stated ice would be in place November thru March, adding that with turf, the facility could also be used for lacrosse, baseball, and other activities. Councilmember Lindberg stated he would want the facility to be used for many other needs of the community. He noted this is much more of a community project for the community benefit, not just for a limited group, but for the whole community. He asked the Council to discuss further how to still make this project happen. Councilmember Hallfin asked if the Hockey Association could contribute additional funds. A Hockey Association member noted that the possibility more funds would be available over time, and added that families involved in hockey, baseball, and lacrosse are very excited about this project. Councilmember Hallfin stated he is a supporter of the hockey program, adding this is a tough decision. He suggested looking for additional funding sources. Ms. Walsh stated they would need to break ground on the project by March for completion next year. Mr. Eisold said staff would need to know the Council’s final decision by the end of February, so as to be able to purchase refrigeration equipment. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 Councilmember Sanger asked the Council, if they move forward on this project, to be transparent in the process. Mr. Harmening added if the Council rejects these bids and holds off on the project for another year, construction costs will escalate again. Councilmember Brausen stated he is willing to consider this project, but would need to talk more with his constituents before making a final decision. Councilmember Mavity stated the project costs had essentially increased from $3 million to over $6 million. She said she is appreciative of the Hockey Association, but has serious reservations in moving forward on this project at this price. However, she added, if it’s the will of the Council to move forward, then we should. Councilmember Sanger stated she is against moving forward and added if she had known about the costs, she would not have wanted to move forward, and would have been more willing to put funding into the community center project. Councilmember Miller agreed with Councilmember Mavity and Councilmember Sanger, noting the overall cost is out of line. Councilmember Hallfin added he would like use the next two weeks to get more information from staff on the project. Councilmember Lindberg said he wants to cautiously move forward with this project and encourage staff to look at more funding options, and perhaps even naming rights. Councilmember Mavity said she is leaning against this project and noted the gender equity issue with St. Louis Park programs. John Basil with the Hockey Association noted the girls’ hockey program is being revitalized and in a few years there is hope to again have a St. Louis Park girls' hockey team. It was the consensus of the City Council to hold off on making a decision and to request more information from staff. Mr. Harmening stated this will be a special place and a special opportunity for the community’s use. It will be a covered facility and there is potential for a unique partnership on this project. He added the City has the resources and is not cutting other projects to do this. The general fund is very healthy and the City needs to remain competitive in the marketplace, especially as a first- ring community and for new home owners. He added the City can make a difference with the addition of this facility. The Study Session recessed at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. It was noted that Mayor Spano was not in attendance. 2. Proposed St. Louis Park Revolving Loan Fund Program Mr. Hunt presented the staff report regarding the proposed revolving loan fund program. He noted that staff was asked to explore this concept further, and they have been working on City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 potential partnerships to efficiently and effectively provide a revolving loan fund to help expanding businesses in St. Louis Park. Mr. Hunt added the benefits of the program to borrowers is that it will help lower down payments and streamline the lending process. Loans would be based on criteria agreed to in advance. Guidelines were presented to the EDA in the packet. CMDC would administer the program on the EDA’s behalf, through a management contract. In order to implement the program, it would require an amendment to the bylaws to allow the Executive Director to sign off on loans up to $200,000. The sign off amount is currently $50,000. Funds would not be released by the City until an actual loan was approved. Mr. Hunt stated staff is looking for feedback on the proposed program, guidelines, and the contract with CMDC. Staff would bring the program back to the EDA for formal approvals on March 21. Councilmember Mavity said she likes this approach to helping businesses expand and stay in St. Louis Park. Mr. Hunt stated staff had discussed this option with Citizens Bank, noting they agreed it was a good concept. Councilmember Miller appreciated staff’s efforts on this and asked what the overall advantage would be from a small business perspective. Mike Mulrooney, President of CMDC, stated this is a gap lending program and is mostly used if there is an appraisal gap or a gap in project costs, for a redevelopment project. He added it can also be used when a small business is given no credit in some instances, or when a business project is desired by the community and there is a gap. Councilmember Miller asked if businesses need a primary lender already in place. Mr. Mulrooney stated the application does require that the business disclose the primary lender. He added the goal is to leverage other options available to make a project work. However, the financial commitment is needed on the project first. Councilmember Brausen asked if the loan program could be promoted to women or minority- owned businesses. Mr. Mulrooney stated credit worthiness is the main criteria in the process. Councilmember Lindberg asked how the EDA pays for this. City Manager Harmening noted there is a balance of $10 million in the Development Fund which could be used for these loans. Councilmember Mavity asked how much goes into this fund annually. Mr. Harmening stated $500,000 comes into the fund each year with repayment of the HRA levy. Councilmember Mavity asked if a plan can be put in place that is more intentional for women and minority-owned businesses, including an outreach program. She asked how the City can then engage and recruit these businesses for the loans. Mr. Hunt noted that staff planned to reach out to organizations representing those groups, as well as others, to make them aware of St. Louis Park’s new program. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 Councilmember Lindberg noted that there would be concern if funds were used for significant alterations to businesses in the Lake Street area. He asked how the City would consider these types of projects. Mr. Mulrooney stated all applications would be reviewed by staff prior to approval. Councilmember Lindberg added one caution would be if an application was contrary to the master plan. This would need to be discussed and reviewed prior to approval also. Mr. Hunt added if there is ambiguity in an application, it could be brought to the EDA for further discussion. Councilmember Sanger stated her approval of the program, but asked staff if there has been any problem with default on these loans. Mr. Mulrooney noted that CMDC has had zero default and over $70 million has been loaned out. Councilmember Sanger asked if this loan process could be used to fund businesses that lease. Staff stated yes, if the business met the criteria, it would be fundable with collateral. Councilmember Brausen stated he supports the concept with a focus on minorities or women- owned businesses and also to underserved businesses. Councilmember Mavity asked if this would change the process at all. Mr. Mulrooney stated a credit score worksheet would be supplied, and a way to address this may be to allow businesses to receive additional points if they are women or minority-owned. However, he encouraged the EDA to not restrict the loans to only these types of businesses and to keep the program open to all businesses. Councilmember Mavity added she is comfortable giving staff authority on this process, but also noted it should be clear that approved applications reflect the vision of the EDA. Mr. Harmening noted that Mayor Spano had asked for preference to non-profit businesses. Mr. Hunt stated the way the guidelines are drafted now, the loans are earmarked for “for profit” businesses and credit worthiness. There was consensus amongst the EDA to support the revolving loan program, guidelines and management contract, with the understanding that they could be reviewed annually by staff and EDA. There was also consensus to allow the Executive Director to sign off on loans up to $200,000. The necessary documents would brought back to EDA for final approval on March 21st. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Minutes: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 16, 2016 1. Call to Order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Housing Assistance Coordinator (Ms. Stromberg), Assistant Housing Supervisor (Ms. Olson), Communications Coordinator (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Bill O’Meara with Community Action Partnerships Services. 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. 2015 Human Rights Award Presentation Brian Johnson, Vice Chair for Human Rights Commission, recognized the St. Louis Park Students Organizing Against Racism (SOAR) as the recipient of the 2015 Human Rights Award. He stated the organization is doing a lot of great things at St. Louis Park High School and embodies what the Human Rights Commission is about in the City. Mayor Spano presented representatives of SOAR with the 2015 Human Rights Award. Cedar Thomas, SOAR Chair, explained how the group developed and their ongoing discussions related to racial equality issues at the high school and in the community. Councilmember Brausen commended the Human Rights Commission and SOAR for their work and thanked them for recognizing the importance of having an open dialogue in the community on the topic of race so people can be engaged and accepting of one another. Councilmember Miller stated he is very impressed with the Human Rights Commission and the members of SOAR for their poise and dedication to this issue. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 Councilmember Lindberg thanked the Human Rights Commission for recognizing SOAR with this award. He congratulated SOAR for working to advance racial equity and stated this is an important conversation to continue. 2b. Retirement Recognition for Housing Assistance Coordinator Cindy Stromberg Mayor Spano presented Cindy Stromberg, Housing Assistance Coordinator, with a Resolution recognizing her dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park for 34 years. Ms. Stromberg stated the City of St. Louis Park has been a wonderful place to work and she will miss all of her colleagues. Councilmember Mavity stated Ms. Stromberg’s work and contributions have helped shape one of the most effective, productive, fair, and welcoming Housing Departments in the region. Mr. Harmening thanked Ms. Stromberg for her work and stated she would be missed. 2c. Recognition of Controller Brian Swanson’s 13 Years of Service Mayor Spano presented Brian Swanson, Controller, with a certificate recognizing his 13 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park. Mr. Swanson thanked the City Council, City staff, and the residents for the opportunity to serve the community. Councilmember Mavity thanked Mr. Swanson for his help in educating the Council to allow them to be able communicate with residents effectively regarding the City’s finances. Councilmember Sanger stated she appreciated Mr. Swanson’s clear focus on long-range financial planning and stability because it has allowed her to have confidence in the financial well-being of the community. Councilmember Lindberg stated he appreciated Mr. Swanson’s service and his ability to clearly explain and articulate the City’s financial position and decisions to the community. Councilmember Brausen thanked Mr. Swanson for his high level of service, adding he has been impressed by the quality of his work and his ability to present long range plans. Mr. Harmening agreed with all of the comments made by the City Council, adding that Mr. Swanson has a great financial mind and he never worried about the City’s finances under his stewardship. He added that Mr. Swanson would be missed. 2d. Recognition of Donations Mayor Spano recognized the American Legion for their $750 donation to Westwood Hills Nature Center. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016 It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of January 25, 2016 as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. City Council Meeting Minutes February 1, 2016 It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2016 as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Execute a three-year contract with YTS Companies for the 2016 - 2018 Boulevard Tree and Stump Removal Program, in an amount not to exceed $57,100 annually. 4b. Execute a three-year contract with YTS Companies for the removal of diseased trees on private property for 2016- 2018, in an amount not to exceed $39,619.00 annually. 4c. Adopt Ordinance No. 2486-16 vacating two drainage and utility easements, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 16-028 to recognize Housing Assistance Coordinator Cindy Stromberg for her 34 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 16-029 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from American Legion in the amount of $750 for Westwood Hills Nature Center to print Westwood Hills Nature Center wildflower coloring books by Maggie Christiansen, Girl Scout Silver Award candidate. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 16-030 approving the First Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement with PLACE. 4g. Adopt Ordinance No. 2487-16 amending the zoning map, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4h. Approve Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 126-14, between the city and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) for communication antennas on the city’s water tower at 2541 Nevada Avenue South. 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 16-031 confirming the appointment of Steven Heintz as interim City Treasurer effective February 18, 2016. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 16-032 approving St. Louis Park Lions Club’s request for placing temporary signs in the public right-of-way. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 4k. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of December 16, 2015. 4l. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 2016. 4m. Adopt Resolution No. 16-033 in support of a grant application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program for development activities for PLACE. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Torrey Kanne to the Planning Commission It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to appoint Torrey Kanne to the Planning Commission for a term to expire May 31, 2018. Councilmember Sanger stated she was looking forward to having Ms. Kanne on the Planning Commission as she brought a wealth of experience from her work in real estate and her level of involvement in the community. Councilmember Brausen thanked Ms. Kanne for her willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. He stated he opposes this appointment as there is no representation from Ward 3 on the Planning Commission and there are already three (3) representatives from Ward 2. He added he would like to see each of the geographic areas of the City represented. He noted he believes Ms. Kanne will do a good job on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Mavity stated this issue has been discussed previously by the Council. She acknowledged that geographic representation was important for all of the City’s advisory commissions and encouraged citizens from all wards to apply. She noted diversity of perspective was also important to give the community fresh ideas and vibrancy. She stated she is excited to have Ms. Kanne serve on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Lindberg stated he shared Councilmember Brausen’s concerns regarding geographic representation on the Planning Commission. He stated it is important to consider geographics and the equal representation of wards. He noted although he does not support Ms. Kanne’s appointment, he does believe she will do a good job on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Hallfin stated he will not support Ms. Kanne’s appointment either; however, he wishes her the best. The motion passed 4-3 (Councilmembers Brausen, Lindberg, and Hallfin). 6. Public Hearings City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 6a. Public Hearing to Consider Allocation of 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds Ms. Olson presented the staff report regarding the proposed use of 2016 CDBG funds. She explained the City annually receives CDBG funds distributed through Hennepin County. The 2015 funding levels are being used for planning purposes until the 2016 allocation is received. The City will receive an estimated $179,231 in 2016. She noted the CDBG fiscal year runs from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. She stated from a policy perspective the City Council has typically focused CDBG funds on improvements to the housing stock for low income families. She added the proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the City’s priorities to preserve existing housing and increase affordable home ownership opportunities. She stated for 2016 $45,000 is proposed to be allocated to the Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program, $70,000 to the Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Deferred Loan Program, $20,000 to the Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach, $16,731 to the St. Louis Park Housing Authority, $20,000 to Perspectives, Inc., and $7,500 for Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook Park. Councilmember Mavity stated the CDBG funds have been used very well to support many of the City’s goals and initiatives. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. Bill O’Meara, Community Action Partners for Suburban Hennepin County, thanked the City for supporting administration of the Emergency Repair Program again this year. He reviewed the programs that residents from St. Louis Park participated in over the past year. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 16-033, approving proposed use of 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Funds and authorize execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any Third Party Agreements. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public Councilmember Brausen noted the City is proactively engaged in activities related to addressing racial equity issues. He thanked the other members of the Council and City staff for participating in the training events. Councilmember Hallfin announced the Children First Fundraiser on March 3rd. He stated they are looking for more participants to sponsor tables and encouraged citizens to go to the Children First website to register. Mr. Harmening encouraged citizens to attend the annual Home Remodeling Fair on February 21st from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at Eisenhower. He also noted the State of City address will be held at Steel Toe Brewing on February 29th. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016 Councilmember Brausen stated the bids for the outdoor ice project are coming in over budget and the Council is seriously considering whether or not to proceed with the project. He encouraged citizens to look at the project because it is an important decision for the community and the Council would appreciate feedback from residents. Mayor Spano stated precinct caucuses would be held on March 1st in Minnesota and encouraged citizens to participate. He added more information was available on the Minnesota Secretary of State’s website. 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items – None 9. Communications – None 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Fire Captain Deane Wallick RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to recognize Captain Deane Wallick for his 35 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City Council. This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Captain Deane Wallick for his years of service. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Fire Captain Deane Wallick RESOLUTION NO. 16-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO FIRE CAPTAIN DEANE WALLICK WHEREAS, Captain Wallick began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park nearly 35 years ago on April 20, 1981; and WHEREAS, Captain Wallick joined the St Louis Park Fire Department on July 17, 1989 and spent the next nearly 27 years serving this community; and WHEREAS, Captain Wallick contributed to the betterment of the fire service throughout the State of Minnesota as an educator and trainer within the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system; and WHEREAS, Captain Wallick also served as a Paid on Call Firefighter for the Cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Fire Captain Deane Wallick his great contributions and 35 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Donation of Fiber Cabling RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of donation of fiber strand cable from Arvig Enterprises, Inc. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept this donation, made as a part of a larger negotiation of a fiber lease agreement? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The City is currently negotiating a fiber lease agreement with Arvig Enterprises, Inc. As a part of that agreement, Arvig Enterprises, Inc. will donate a 144-strand fiber cable with an estimated value of $10,000 to the City. The donation is given without restrictions. Arvig Enterprises, Inc. plans to lease back some of the 144 strands as part of the fiber lease agreement, the policy for which was approved by the City Council in late 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The donation will benefit the City’s fiber lease agreement. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Soren Mattick, City Attorney Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of December 3, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Accept Donation of Fiber Cabling RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM ARVIG ENTERPRISES, INC. OF ONE 144-FIBER STRAND CABLE WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, Arvig Enterprises, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, donated one 144-fiber strand cable (single mode), with an estimated value of $10,000, installed in one City-owned conduit along a route starting in a City handhole located on the north side of West Lake Street at Texas Avenue South / Brookview Drive, thence easterly to a City handhole on Louisiana Avenue on the southwest point of a roundabout where Louisiana Avenue and West Lake Street intersect, to be used at the City’s discretion. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Arvig Enterprises, Inc. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Traffic Study No. 661: Authorize Installation of “No Parking” Restrictions at Lake Street RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions on the south side of Lake Street from Webster Avenue to 50 feet southwest of Webster Avenue. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority. SUMMARY: The city is proposing to restrict parking on 50 feet of the south side of Lake Street (southwest of Webster Avenue) to increase sightlines at this intersection. When vehicles are parked all the way up to the intersection, it is difficult for vehicles on Webster Avenue to see oncoming Lake Street northbound traffic and make a safe turn. By limiting parking, the sightline should be improved and making the turning maneuvers safer. There is a bus stop at this location as well. By restricting parking, the bus will be able to pull out of the travel lane to more easily drop off and pick up passengers. The city notified the business at the southwest corner of Lake Street and Webster Avenue about the proposed parking restrictions. The business had no issues with the proposed change. A few residents on Webster Avenue have also shown support for the proposed change. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Traffic Study #661 Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study No. 661: Authorize Installation of “No Parking” Restrictions at Lake Street RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON LAKE STREET WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that no parking restrictions on the south side of Lake Street southwest of Webster Avenue need to be installed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized install “No Parking” restrictions on the south side of Lake Street from Webster Avenue to 50 feet southwest of Webster Avenue. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study No. 661: Authorize Installation of “No Parking” Restrictions at Lake Street TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 661 Lake Street (Parking Restrictions) Proposed No Parking Signs Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 4d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Traffic Study No. 662: Authorize Installation of “No Parking” in Alley at Maryland/Louisiana Ave & 31st/32nd St RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions on the south side of the alley between Maryland/Louisiana Avenue and 31st/32nd Street. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority. SUMMARY: The city has received a request to sign no parking on a segment of the alley between Maryland Avenue and Louisiana Avenue at 31st Street. There is a gravel section of alley (red line on the attached map) that has been used as a parking space in the past. City ordinance states no vehicles are allowed to park in a public alley. When vehicles are parked in this area, it makes it difficult for vehicles, especially garbage trucks and other large vehicles, to make the turn into and from the alley. The Traffic Committee discussed this request and recommends for the reasons listed above and to be in compliance with city ordinance, to sign this gravel section of the alley as no parking. The city sent letters to impacted properties and received no responses. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Traffic Study #662 Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: TS No.662: Authorize Installation of “No Parking” in Alley at Maryland/Louisiana Ave & 31st/32nd St RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON MARYLAND/LOUISIANA AVENUE ALLEY WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that no parking restrictions on the south side of the alley between Maryland/Louisiana Avenue and 31st/32nd Street need to be installed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized install “No Parking” restrictions for 140 feet on the south side of the alley between Maryland/Louisiana Avenue and 31st/32nd Street. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: TS No.662: Authorize Installation of “No Parking” in Alley at Maryland/Louisiana Ave & 31st/32nd St TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 662 Maryland/Louisiana Avenue Alley (Parking Restrictions) Proposed No Parking Signs Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Traffic Study No. 663: Authorize Removal of Yield Signs & Install of Stop Signs on 29th St at Brunswick Ave RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding prior traffic controls and authorizing the installation of stop signs on 29th Street at Brunswick Avenue. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority. SUMMARY: The City has received a request to change the yield sigs on 29th Street at Brunswick Avenue to stop signs. Currently the intersection has two yields signs for eastbound and westbound traffic on 29th Street. The Traffic Committee discussed this request and due to the high accident history at this location, the committee recommends the yield signs be removed and stop signs be installed. Letters were sent to properties in the vicinity of the intersection and city staff have received 6 emails in support of the proposed sign change. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Traffic Study #663 Resolution # 6438 Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: TS No. 663: Authorize Removal of Yield Signs & Install of Stop Signs on 29th St at Brunswick Ave RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6438 AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON 29TH STREET AT BRUNSWICK AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that stop signs be installed on 29th Street at Brunswick Avenue. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Resolution No. 6438 be rescinded. LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install stop signs on 29th Street at Brunswick Avenue. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: TS No. 663: Authorize Removal of Yield Signs & Install of Stop Signs on 29th St at Brunswick Ave TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 663 29th Street at Brunswick Avenue (Stop Signs) 29th Street: Existing: Yield Signs Proposed: Stop Signs City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Title: TS No. 663: Authorize Removal of Yield Signs & Install of Stop Signs on 29th St at Brunswick Ave Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing calling for a Public Hearing on April 18, 2016 on the issuance of Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds and authorizing the publication of a notice of the hearing for the Mount Olivet Project. POLICY CONSIDERATION:  Is the City Council willing to conduct a public hearing on April 18, 2016 to consider the issuance of Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2016 for Mount Olivet in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $33,000,000?  Is the City Council willing to authorize the publication of the public hearing? SUMMARY: Mount Olivet Residence owns and operates a 94-bed boarding care facility (the “Care Facility”) and a 153-bed licensed skilled nursing facility (the “Skilled Nursing Facility”) located in Minneapolis. The 2016 Bonds will refinance the 2011 Bonds, as well as provide financing for a 36,000 square foot addition to the Skilled Nursing Facility. Mount Olivet would like to market the Bonds in $5,000 denominations because many of their members and supporters would like to buy the Bonds. Therefore, Mount Olivet is asking that the City waive its requirement that Bonds must be issued in $100,000 increments. The City of Minneapolis has a policy that requires bonds be issued in $25,000 denominations therefore Mount Olivet has approached the City of St. Louis Park. The Series 2016 Bonds, will be issued in the amount not to exceed $33,000,000. The City of Minneapolis has indicated it will provide host approval for the City of St. Louis Park to issue the Bonds. NEXT STEPS: The City Council will be asked to adopt a resolution, prepared by Kennedy and Graven scheduling a public hearing to be held at the City Council’s regularly scheduled meeting on April 18, 2016 and to authorize the publication notice for the hearing. Pending Council approval, the Bonds would close later in April 2016. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Per the City’s Private Activity Revenue Bond Policy, Mount Olivet will pay an annual administration fee in the amount of 1/8th of 1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal of the bonds. This amounts to approximately $700,000 over the 33 year life of the bonds. The City uses this administration fee in the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Public Hearing Notice Prepared by: Coty Hemann, Accountant I Reviewed by: Steven Heintz, Interim Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No.4f) Page 2 Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.1655, AS AMENDED, AND PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to issue revenue obligations to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment, or extension of a “project,” defined in the Act, in part, as any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, whether or not operated for profit, engaged in providing health care services, including hospitals, nursing homes, and related medical facilities. 1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, a municipality is authorized to issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property located outside of the corporate boundaries of such municipality if the obligations are issued under a joint powers agreement between the governmental unit issuing the obligations and the governmental unit in which the property to be acquired or improved is located. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, by the terms of a joint powers agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, two governmental units may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised and the joint powers agreement may provide for the exercise of such powers by one or more of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other participating units. 1.03. Mount Olivet Careview Home, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Mount Olivet Careview”), and Mount Olivet Home, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Mount Olivet Home,” and together with Mount Olivet Careview, the “Borrower”), have proposed that the City issue its revenue obligations, in one or more series, as taxable or tax-exempt obligations, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $33,000,000, and loan the proceeds thereof to the Borrower. The Borrower intends to apply the proceeds thereof, along with other available funds, to (i) refinance the Mount Olivet Home, a 94-bed boarding care facility (the “Care Facility”) located at 5517 Lyndale Avenue South in the City of Minneapolis (the “City of Minneapolis”) through the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding Revenue Bond (Mount Olivet Home Project), Series 2011 (the “Prior Bond”), issued by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency in the original aggregate principal amount of $5,971,000; (ii) finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a new 36,000 square foot addition to the Mount Olivet Careview Home, a 153- bed licensed skilled nursing facility (the “Skilled Nursing Facility”) located at 603 West 55th Street City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No.4f) Page 3 Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project in the City of Minneapolis; (iii) finance the remodeling of approximately 51,000 square feet of the existing Skilled Nursing Facility; (iv) fund debt service reserve funds; (v) finance capitalized interest during the construction of the addition to the Skilled Nursing Facility and remodeling of the Skilled Nursing Facility (the “New Construction”); and (vi) pay costs of issuance of the Bonds. 1.04. The Borrower has requested that the City Council conduct a public hearing on April 18, 2016 to (i) approve the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and (ii) approve the New Construction pursuant to Section 469.154, subdivision 4 of the Act. Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Borrower to the City to date, the City Council of the City hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and declarations: (a) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Borrower and the proceeds thereof, along with available funds, will be used to refinance the Care Facility through the redemption and prepayment of the Prior Bond, finance the New Construction to the Skilled Nursing Facility, fund debt service reserve funds, finance capitalized interest during the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility, and pay costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City will enter into one or more loan agreements (or other revenue agreements) with the Borrower requiring loan repayments from the Borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds when due and requiring the Borrower to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the Care Facility and the Skilled Nursing Facility (including the New Construction thereto), including taxes thereon. (b) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds, the City’s purpose is to further the policies of the Act. (c) The Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, will not be a general or moral obligation of the City, and will not be secured by or payable from revenues derived from any exercise of the taxing powers of the City. Section 3. Public Hearing. 3.01. The City Council shall meet at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 18, 2016, to conduct a public hearing as requested by the Borrower, notice of which hearing (the “Public Notice”) will be published as required by Section 469.154, subdivision 4 of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code. 3.02. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish the Public Notice, in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A, in the Sun-Sailor, the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The Public Notice shall be published at least once, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the public hearing. At the public hearing, reasonable opportunity will be provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds for the purposes set forth herein. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No.4f) Page 4 Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project 3.03. Pursuant to Section 469.154 of the Act, prior to the issuance of the Bonds by the City, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (“DEED”) must approve the costs of the New Construction to be funded by the Bonds on the basis of an application submitted by the City with all required attachments and exhibits (the “DEED Application”). 3.04. In accordance with Section 469.154 of the Act, the City Manager and other City staff are hereby authorized and directed to cause a draft copy of the DEED Application, together with drafts of all required attachments and exhibits, to be prepared by Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel (“Bond Counsel”). The DEED Application, together with all attachments and exhibits, shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the City Manager during regular business hours of the City. The City Manager and other officers, employees, attorneys, and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide DEED with any information needed for this purpose, and the City Manager is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be deemed appropriate by Bond Counsel. Section 4. Preliminary Approval. The City Council hereby states its preliminary intention to issue the Bonds in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $33,000,000 to (i) refinance the Care Facility by refunding the outstanding Prior Bond; (ii) finance the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility; (iii) fund debt service reserve funds; (iv) finance capitalized interest during the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility; and (v) pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. Section 5. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code. 5.01. Treasury Regulations. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated final regulations governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to reimburse the City or a borrower from the City for project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the “Regulations”) require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later than sixty (60) days after payment of the original expenditure. The Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date the expenditure is paid. The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance of the bonds. 5.02. Reimbursement for Expenditures. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to expenditures with respect to the capital improvements to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the Borrower for the expenditures made for costs of the New Construction from the proceeds of the Bonds after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the Act. Section 6. Official Statement. Other than providing information regarding the City, the City has not and will not participate in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement (the “Preliminary Official Statement”) or the Official Statement (the “Official Statement”) relating City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No.4f) Page 5 Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project to the Bonds and the City assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement. Subject to the foregoing, the City hereby consents to the distribution and the use by the Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Bonds of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement. Section 7. Costs. The Borrower will pay the administrative fees of the City and pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the refinancing of the Care Facility and the financing of the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility and issuing the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are issued. Section 8. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guaranty or firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to herein, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to in Section 4 hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. Section 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, this 21st day of March, 2016. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No.4f) Page 6 Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.1655, AS AMENDED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 18, 2016, at or after 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City, on a proposal that the City Council approve and authorize the issuance by the City of its revenue bonds, in one or more series, as taxable or tax-exempt obligations (the “Bonds”), under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended (the “Act”), for the benefit of Mount Olivet Careview Home, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Mount Olivet Careview”), and Mount Olivet Home, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Mount Olivet Home”), or any of their affiliates (collectively, the “Borrower”). The proceeds of the Bonds, along with other available funds, will be used to (i) refinance Mount Olivet Home, a 94-bed boarding care facility (the “Care Facility”) located at 5517 Lyndale Avenue South in the City of Minneapolis (the “City of Minneapolis”) through the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding Revenue Bond (Mount Olivet Home Project), Series 2011 (the “Prior Bond”), issued by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency in the original aggregate principal amount of $5,971,000; (ii) finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a new 36,000 square foot addition to the Mount Olivet Careview Home, a 153-bed licensed skilled nursing facility (the “Skilled Nursing Facility”) located at 603 West 55th Street in the City of Minneapolis; (iii) finance the remodeling of approximately 51,000 square feet of the existing Skilled Nursing Facility; (iv) fund debt service reserve funds; (v) finance capitalized interest during the construction of the addition to the Skilled Nursing Facility and remodeling of the Skilled Nursing Facility (collectively, the “New Construction”); and (vi) pay costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Care Facility is owned and operated by Mount Olivet Home, and the Skilled Nursing Facility is owned and operated by Mount Olivet Careview. Following the public hearing, the City Council will consider adoption of a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds to (i) refinance the Care Facility through the redemption and prepayment of the Prior Bond; (ii) finance the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility; (iii) fund debt service funds; (iv) finance capitalized interest during the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility; and (v) pay costs of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”). The aggregate face amount of the Bonds proposed to be issued to finance the Project is presently estimated not to exceed $33,000,000. The Bonds will be issued by the City and will constitute special, limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues expressly pledged to the payment thereof, and will not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City and will not be secured by the taxing power of the City or any assets or property of the City except interests in the Project that may be granted to the City in conjunction with the financing. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development for approval of the New Construction of the Skilled Nursing Facility to City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No.4f) Page 7 Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding – Mount Olivet Residence Project be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds, together with all attachments and exhibits, shall be available for public inspection at City Hall during normal business hours following the publication of this notice. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above or may file written comments with the City Clerk prior to the date of the hearing set forth above. Dated: [Date of publication] BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA /s/ Melissa Kennedy City Clerk City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4g EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Common Hope Staff to Westwood Hills Nature Center ($40) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Common Hope staff in the amount of $40 for Westwood Hills Nature Center. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. On behalf of the Common Hope staff, Shari Blindt graciously donated $40 to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for care and management of the program animals in honor of Lynn Brysiewicz. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for care and management of the program animals in honor of Lynn Brysiewicz. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Carrie Mandler, Secretary / Program Aide Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Common Hope Staff to Westwood Hills Nature Center ($40) RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $40 TO BE USED AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, the Common Hope staff donated $40 to Westwood Hills Nature Center in honor of Lynn Brysiewicz; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the Common Hope staff with the understanding that it must be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for care and management of the program animals in honor of Lynn Brysiewicz. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4h EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: West End Festival Site RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to declare Gamble Drive, adjacent to the West End, as the official West End Festival Site. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with staff proceeding to permit for the West End Festival Site? SUMMARY: The West End Festival Site will be located on Gamble Drive adjacent to the West End. City staff have been working closely with Discover St. Louis Park to research the best possible area to have special events on or near the West End district. Gamble Drive has been declared the best location due to the minimal impact on that area. All city departments (administration, zoning, inspections, operations & recreation, police, fire, etc.) and West End management have met and all agreed that Gamble Drive is the most promising to host these types of festivals. All departments agree that Gamble Drive would be closed during these types of festivals. Agencies that have already approached the city to have a festival at the West End Festival Site are SRO Productions, Grape Growers Association Wine Festival, and St. Jude’s. Staff would limit permits to one per month. Currently, City ordinance requires temporary liquor licenses to be approved by the City Council. The first group to use this site is SRO Productions. They will be hosting the City Pages Beer Festival on Saturday, May 21, from 5 to 9 p.m. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Operations & Recreation Department would be the main contact with the event coordinator and each department that has permits would collect the necessary fees from that event host. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: West End Festival Site Map Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 2 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 3 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival Site Page 4 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival Site Page 5 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 6 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 7 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 8 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 9 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 10 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 11 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 12 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 13 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 14 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 15 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 16 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 17 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 18 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 19 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 20 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 21 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 22 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 23 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 24 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 25 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 26 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 27 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Title: West End Festival SitePage 28 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Award Bids for the Sanitary Sewer Main Rehab Project No. 4016-3000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Michels Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $134,891.00 for the Sanitary Sewer Main Rehab Project No. 4016-3000. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the low bid and allow this project to move forward? SUMMARY: A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Insituform Technologies $191,064.70 Michels Corp. $134,891.00 Engineer’s Estimate $143,715.00 A review of the bids indicates Michels Corporation submitted the lowest bid. Michels is a reputable contractor that has successfully completed worked for the City before. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $134,891.00. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project has been programmed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for construction in 2016 using Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds. This project was not originally in the CIP, but added when crews responded to a break in the forcemain in 2015. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Consent Agenda Item: 4i City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Bid Tabulation: Award Bids for the Sanitary Sewer Main Rehab Project No. 4016-3000 DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In March of 2015, the City of St. Louis Park Utility Crews responded to a break a forcemain along Park Center Drive. While repairing the break, crews noted the poor condition of the line and requested that the pipe be scheduled into the City’s annual sanitary sewer repair projects. These noted structural defects are the result of age of the pipe, sewer blockages (backups), or line collapse may occur. To address these structural defects, the city’s Capital Improvement Plan includes annual funding for sanitary sewer main lining. Lining can extend the life of our sanitary sewers by 50 years or more. This technology, called cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) renewal, installs a new resin pipe inside the old cast iron sewer forcemain with minimal street disruption. Since this is a forcemain, the liner and the method of installation are different than with gravity sewer. The Contractor will dig a pit at each end to access the forcemain, through which, the liner pipe is inserted into the pipe and cured in place with a heat or steam process. Any given segment is usually completed in one working day. During the process, existing flows are bypassed using pumps. Project 4016-3000 includes lining of the sanitary sewer forcemain from the lift station on Park Center Drive near the southwest corner of the Target parking lot. Approximately 900 feet of pipe will be lined to manhole located across from the AAA building. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on February 18, 2016. In addition, plans and specifications are noticed on the City Website and are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest CDN.com. Email notification was provided to five minority associations and final printed plans were available for viewing at iSqFt and at City Hall. Twelve contractors/vendors purchased plan sets and bids were received from two contractors on March 1, 2016. A separate gravity main lining project is also out to bid, with City Council award anticipated in the coming months. Construction Timeline Construction is tentatively planned to begin in late April and should be completed by late June. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4j OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 3, 2016 – 6:05 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Carl Robertson STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Nicole Mardell, Gary Morrison 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of January 6, 2016 Commissioner Carper moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Tatalovich abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. AC Marriott, Central Park West Phase III – Preliminary and Final PUD Location: 5075 Wayzata Blvd. Applicant: RISLP, LLC Case No.: 16-01-PUD Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the request for the PUD is to allow construction of a six-story, 126 room hotel. She explained that as part of the larger Central Park West PUD, the site has a variety of agreements already in place to control access, parking and civic space. She reviewed the zoning analysis of the proposal. Commissioner Peilen asked the distance between the off-site parking and the hotel. Ms. Mardell responded that it is a distance of about ½ block. Commissioner Peilen asked if the hotel will have a shuttle service for guests if they have to park off-site. Ms. Mardell said staff has been working with the applicant to find ways to do a valet or shuttle service. She said the applicant has indicated the off-site area is going to mainly be reserved for employees so that all hotel guests can use the 79 spaces on site. Commissioner Carper spoke about stormwater retention. He asked if there will be any rain gardens on site. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2016 Ms. Mardell responded that there are no rain gardens on site. There is an underground stormwater retention system on site. Commissioner Carper asked if accommodation will be made for electric car charging. He asked about LED lighting on site. Jesse Messner, architect, Cities Edge, said they feel they will have the guest parking needs met with the surface stalls on site. He said they will monitor that and if needed, they will have valet service for off-site parking. He said the off-site parking would be specifically for employees and the spillover would go to the ramp. He said at this time they don’t have any accommodation for electric cars. Mr. Messner said a great majority of the interior and exterior building will have LED lighting. Commissioner Carper said he would recommend the development include charging stations for vehicles, or at least the conduit installed to accommodate it in the future. Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carper remarked that the hotel will meet the needs of the community and the area and it will fit in well. Commissioner Peilen said the hotel looks like an excellent development for the city. Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD for the AC Marriott Hotel, Central Park West Phase III. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 4. Other Business None. 5. Communications Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, reminded commissioners about the February 22nd Boards and Commissions annual meeting with the City Council. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. A study session regarding proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance began at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Sr. Office Assistant Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4k OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Maren Anderson, Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Toby Keeler and Rolf Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Cindy Hoffman and Andrew Reinhardt STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator; and, Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager OTHERS PRESENT: Karly Werner, Comcast Cable; Tyler Middleton, CenturyLink 1. Call to Order Chair Browning called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Roll Call Present at roll call were Commissioners Anderson, Browning, Hartman, Keeler and Peterson. 3. Approval of Minutes A. Telecommunications Commission minutes: August 12, 2015 It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Keeler, to approve the minutes of August 12, 2015, without changes. The motion passed 5-0. B. Telecommunications Commission minutes: September 23, 2015 special meeting It was moved by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Keeler, to approve the minutes of September 23, 2015, without changes. The motion passed 5-0. 4. Adoption of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Keeler, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0. 5. Public Comment - None 6. Reports & Discussion A. CenturyLink Franchise update Mr. Dunlap stated that the City Council adopted the proposed franchise on November 16th and staff is in the final stages of getting it finalized with signatures from CenturyLink. The effective date of the franchise is December 12th. A CenturyLink representative was invited to talk about when service will be available in St. Louis Park. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Title: Telecommunications Commission Minutes of December 9, 2015 Tyler Middleton, CenturyLink’s Vice President for Operations, said service would be available in a matter of days and certainly by the end of year, after they finalize some things system-wise. Once that is done, residents can go to their web site to see if they are eligible. They will also be mailing marketing brochures to eligible households and have sales teams going door to door. Chair Browning asked how long does it would take to get connected? Mr. Middleton replied statutorily it is seven days, but it usually takes two days. There is a lot of interest and demand. The final date is fluid, but by 12/23 for sure. Chair Browning asked what the cost of service and how it compared to other areas? Mr. Middleton replied the best way to look at options was on their web site and cost depended on what customers wanted to have. Mr. Dunlap asked if they have to be CenturyLink telephone or Internet customers for this service? Mr. Middleton replied telephone was not required, but it runs over their Internet, so they work hand in hand. The pricing offers are the same across Metro area, and eight cities are live right now. Commissioner Keeler asked what channel they got for St. Louis Park? Mr. Dunlap said channel 22. Mr. McHugh noted they came up with the slogan “Choose Your View on 22.” Mr. Dunlap said he’d talked to CenturyLink engineers and had several on-site visits, and it will be 180 days before the local programming equipment is installed. B. Customer service update from Comcast Ms. Werner said that Mr. Dunlap prepared the annual compilation of complaints. Comcast has a multi-year commitment to transform the customer service experience. They are investing $300 million into customer service call center improvements based on customer feedback which will create 5,500 new jobs in U.S. with 400 in the St. Paul office. Hiring will begin in January. Chair Browning asked if there are specialists for customer service? Mr. Werner responded that was the intent a couple years ago where they went from generalists to more “specialists” and they are still building on that. Ms. Werner noted that bills will be simplified in the next quarter and they are also simplifying the credit approval processes. They will no longer be charging for self install kits for customers. They can send a truck or tech if a customer needs assistance at no charge. They will continue to keep the Commission updated. Chair Browning commented that the co-pilot was interesting and a really great idea. The cable box is a computer, and to be able to walk a customer through a problem is a good use of technology. Will there be another speed increase coming next year for the new DOCSIS standard, and will new modems be required? Ms. Werner replied that they doubled most of the speeds in the fall at no additional price. In November they increased speeds in the most popular bundles. Customers need to reset their modems to take City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Title: Telecommunications Commission Minutes of December 9, 2015 advantage of the new speeds. They will be rolling out the new DOCSIS 3.1 services by the end of 2016, and every customer will have access to 1 gig service with the new modem. Chair Browning asked if there was any idea on the price for the new services, and Ms. Werner said that information isn’t available yet. Mr. Dunlap put up a table with tabulated Comcast complaints for the last five years. The total complaint calls so far this year were 73, which so far is down 25% from last year. Total cable service complaints so far are 115 this year, compared with 130 last year, so far down 11%. A trend in the right direction. The commission was asking about the complaints and what they could do about it. They can consider as a work plan item doing this report each quarter to track the trends. If calls went up, they could consider action. Commissioner Peterson asked if previous years could be broken down into quarters? Mr. Dunlap said that he wasn’t thinking of tabulating the past quarters, but tabulating the 2016 first quarter. Commissioner Keeler noted that the number of complaints was ½ of a percent of the 13,000 subscribers. Mr. McHugh said Comcast currently had some service areas in certain states that have data tiers. Is there anything like that planned for Minnesota? Ms. Werner replied they are piloting that in a number of markets, but there were no plans at the moment to institute that in the Twin Cities. C. Comcast update on new rates or changes in the channel lineup Chair Browning said that there are no changes at this time. D. Complaint logs Chair Browning said that the numbers look better. Most complaints are typically billing questions. Having a new bill was a good step. Are bills the same on-line versus paper? Ms. Werner replied yes. Mr. Dunlap noted that there would be CenturyLink complaints now as well. E. Proposed Annual Meeting with Council 2/22/16, Draft Annual Report for 2015 and Work Plan for 2016 Mr. Dunlap presented the annual report and work plan, and described the Council’s plans for these reports. All Commissions will meet with the City Council on the same night and have a ten-minute presentation and ten minutes for question and answer. This Commission’s time slot is 6:40 to 7 p.m., and all commissioners are invited. The report and work plan have been started, but Commissioners need to brainstorm topics they’d like to pursue for the work plan. The Cable TV technology presentation was not completed in 2015 because it was an extremely busy year for the Commission. For 2016 he suggested that they consider touring the Golden Valley CenturyLink facility. It would be great to see how the technology differs from Comcast. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 4 Title: Telecommunications Commission Minutes of December 9, 2015 Chair Browning liked the idea of touring CenturyLink, said that fiber was the ultimate broadband and suggested having a speaker discuss fiber technology. He would like to know how the fiber installations in other cities could impact St. Louis Park. The city has some “dark” fiber now and he’d like to see if the city could utilize existing infrastructure with partners like Park Nicollet’s eating disorder institute or with Southwest Light Rail. He said he didn’t know if the city should lease it out or wanted to take that responsibility on. Fiber is the future of broadband, and it would be good to find out how much data can move across it, since that’s changed over the years. Mr. Middleton said that CenturyLink could arrange a fiber splicing demonstration, and Chair Browning liked that idea. Commissioner Keeler stated that the City Council has a vision for communications and technology engagement. It would be a good exercise to see what elements of that vision that this Commission could take on to provide recommendations or support. Chair Browning indicated they could attend a City Council study session and hear Council’s vision and get suggestions. They had articulated that generally, but maybe they need to get more specific about it, and what they would like to see. Mr. McHugh identified second Wednesday’s of the month were a conflict for him. Mr. Dunlap said that he started with the fourth Wednesday of each month but some of those weren’t available. Mr. Dunlap suggested that Park TV marketing be part of the work plan and get suggestions on February 24th. He might have some ideas at that point from the graphic artist staff working on the marketing. Chair Browning stated it would be nice to change City Hall signage to reflect Park TV and perhaps have logos on the trucks. Let’s toot our own horn a bit. Mr. Dunlap noted that the production van does have significant logos for the local channels. They will be adding a different channel on CenturyLink and that will be part of the marketing update, to educate customers how to find ParkTV there. Chair Browning suggested displaying messages on local electronic signs, like at the church on Minnetonka Boulevard. Mr. Dunlap would update the reports and send to commissioners. F. Set meetings for 2016 Commissioners set the 2016 meetings as follows: February 24, May 11, July 27, October 26 and December 14. G. Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting Chair Browning opened the nominations for Chair. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 5 Title: Telecommunications Commission Minutes of December 9, 2015 Commissioner Keeler made a motion to nominate Commissioner Peterson as Chair, Commissioner Anderson seconded. Chair Browning called twice more for nominations. The motion to approve Commissioner Peterson as Chair passed 5-0. Commissioner Browning made a motion to nominate Commissioner Anderson as Vice Chair, Commissioner Keeler seconded. Chair Browning called twice more for nominations. The motion to approve Commissioner Anderson as Vice Chair passed 5-0. 7. Communication from the Chair, Communications from City Staff Chair Bruce said it was an interesting and fun year, and he was glad to have CenturyLink in the mix now. Commissioner Keeler wanted to recognize the St. Louis Park staff for an excellent job in the negotiations with CenturyLink, and commended the CenturyLink staff as a pleasure to work with. Mr. McHugh distributed programming to date for TV15. He said it was the first year he and Scott Smith had broken 100 programs, and it was a great feeling to be able to go out and find and produce all that programming. Chair Browning felt it was phenomenal that it’s primarily two people were doing that programming. Commissioner Keeler wanted to recognize Mr. Dunlap for volunteering to serve on the MACTA Board beginning in 2016 and be the membership committee chair. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Peterson made a motion, Commission Keeler seconded to adjourn at 7:45. The motion passed 5-0. Respectfully submitted by: Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4l MINUTES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 2, 2015 Community Room, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Rachel Harris, Karen Laumb, Cindy Larson O’Neil, Nancy Rose, Jayne Stevenson, Judy Voigt. EXCUSED ABSENCE: Chris Anderson, Mark Eilers, Renee McGarvey, Paul Ziegle. STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc and Recording Secretary (Mary Pappas). GUESTS: Julie Rappaport, work group member; Steve Hanson, Chair of Police Advisory Commission 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Introductions were made. 2. The minutes of the November 4, 2015 meeting were approved unanimously. 3. Business/Work Groups a. Zero Waste – Polystyrene research update – Judy noted the work plan, still in progress. She will meet with Kala on City Staff to finalize in January 2016. Will emphasize recycling and look closer at the life cycle assessment, and the carbon footprint, and foam vs. paper. Judy added the work group and the Commission will want to lead based on scientific evidence. Chair Gips thanked the group for their work and their recommendations to the Commission. Chair Gips added the Commission is not certain the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is good or not, and added they won’t support a policy if it hurts sustainability. He added, the Commission will need to be clear on this. The Commission will need to:  Review case studies  Review recyclability  Look at this as a regional approach or policy, throughout the metro, and attempt to discuss with Hennepin County.  Discuss with industry issues related to polystyrene, but leave this to the City to resolve.  Look at the burning of polystyrene and toxicity  Framing of the ordinance will be important  Review compost and recycle – more can be done, and packaging is a small portion of the waste stream. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 2 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 Chair Gips added the challenge will be how to frame this to the City Council and can we delay choosing a position? We will listen at the first public hearing and then review, and take a position at the second public hearing. Additionally, the Commission may ask for a delay, and express that we have not made a decision as yet, and need further investigation. Chair Gips noted the dates of the two public hearings: Dec 7th and Dec 21st, 2015. (Chair Gips will write the motions – these are notes of Motion parameters: High priority and already in place initiatives like organics and recycling should be priority. Positives of the discussion, statement of concern about staff, commissioners and work group members. Will continue to interfere with any benefit – ask that it not continue at the present time. If council feels want to go forward, number of key pieces of info and questions to be brought forward at a later date. Cindy move, Nancy seconds. Friendly amendment to Motion: In the spirit of this discussion we propose Chair Gips draft a position statement from the commission on the proposed ordinance and that have concerns and questions. Chair Gips will send the motion to the Commissioners for review and will ask for replies and then will submit to Council on the morning of Monday Dec 7th. He will include all the information about polystyrene. b. Education and Action – will present at next meeting. c. GreenStep Cities – Nancy stated there have been 2 meetings. Ideas were exchanged and the work group is getting closer on how to present this information to the Commission. The group agreed they would like to become a Step 2 City by May 2016, with the goal of achieving Step 3 by the following year. They noted they are making progress, but added this is a complex rating system. They will plan to present at the February 2016 meeting. d. Energy – Partners in Energy and Centers for Environment in Energy – Cindy noted this work group now has sub groups and they are working on goals and strategies that can be achieved in the next 18 months. The sub groups are: Youth, Renewable, Efficiency and Climate Action. And all work is happening simultaneously. They will continue to look for the main goal to focus on, and the need to set a vision, while scaling up the work. Jayne noted the Roots and Shoots group would like to do an energy campaign in St. Louis Park and student are in the process of formalizing this, getting signatures on petitions and writing a Declaration of Independence from fossil fuels. The Commission asked Jayne to send an email of appreciation to Roots and Shoots, thanking them for their work on this project. Jayne also invited the Commission to attend an upcoming meeting at the high school. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 3 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 e. Water, Land, Wildlife – this group had no updates to report. The work plan is completed and Chair Gips congratulated Nancy and Karen on their work. The plan will be sent to the City Council. Additionally, Shannon will submit to the City Council all completed plans including, Transportation and Water, Land, Wildlife, and Zero Waste. f. Transportation – Rachel said this group had a good meeting recently with Greg Lindberg, City Council Member to discuss protected bike lanes. They developed six action items and had a youth member there who shared his experience of biking on Dakota Ave. to SLP high school. Additionally, the student will find out if there are other students that bike to school, or if there is a bike club. Also a Facebook page has been developed entitled: “Bike and Walk the Park” and 150 members joined the group within one week. Ryan noted that he also shared the living streets information from Maplewood and added he will draft a policy for St Louis Park to present to the Commission. Chair Gips added Phil at Green Step Cities could help in this effort, as he has worked on this in the past. Ryan will be on sabbatical starting January 1st, but will work more on this during that time. g. Communication – no updates at this time. h. Annual Report, work plans, template for Council – Shannon distributed information and noted areas that will be addressed during the upcoming Commission retreat in January. She added the Commission will need to work on 2016 goals and key initiatives and activities during the retreat also. She requested each work group submit their top three priorities to be discussed at the planning retreat. The Commissioners will review the 2015 goals to identify what was accomplished, and what will still need to be addressed in 2016. i. Bylaws, norms, guidelines – Chair Gips stated he is going to send the Commissioners the bylaws before the next meeting for their review. He asked them to review for changes, and noted this will be discussed at the next meeting. j. Recruiting new commissioners – Chair Gips noted this has been a disappointment as there have been no people of color on the Commission. He added he welcomes suggestions for candidates and added they Commission could also attempt to mirror the composition of the City of St Louis Park. Also, they will attempt to recruit one youth/student and three Commissioner positions. Ryan suggested asking the SLP Human Rights Commission about possible members who may be interested in Environmental & Sustainability Commission. Staff is working on Commissioner term limits. k. Elections, new member orientation, planning meeting in January – Shannon noted that the new Commissioners most likely will begin in March, so elections would need to be held at the January or February meeting. Additionally, orientation would be held for the new Commissioners in March. The Planning Retreat was tentatively scheduled for January 17, 2016, from 1:30 – 4:30 p.m., pending asking Renee and Chris about their availability, and pending finding a facilitator for this date, and a location. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 4 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 l. Reports on Meetings and Upcoming Events:  West Metro Climate Convening- Meteorologist Paul Douglas presented. It was a helpful positive meeting, and well attended by young people.  EPA Riley meeting – There were difficult discussions held, and citizens are fearful and defensive at this time, related to this topic. The Commission will discuss this in 2016, and encourage more community involvement. This topic will be added to the January 6th agenda and Jay Hall will be invited to present at this meeting.  Dec 1 Metro Summit Lakes & Rivers – The presentations were very technical, focused on water quality, shoreline restoration techniques and aquatic invasive species. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is considering having quarterly events for Lake Associations, and is requesting suggestions for presentations and discussion topics for 2016.  Jan 28 Climate Adaptation Conference – for more information on this, the Commissioners were instructed to email Shannon. It was noted the U of M is hosting and the Mayor elect will participate.  April 16 Annual Organic Living Conference – This will be discussed at the Jan meeting, or invite commissioners to be part of planning process for this conference. Nancy Rose would be interested in involvement on this conference. m. Acknowledgement of outgoing commissioners – Karen was recognized for her work on the Commission, as were Alex, Paul and Mark. Chair Gips expressed thanks to all for their work. Karen will stay on the Water and Wildlife workgroup. Also, certificates were presented to each outgoing Commissioner, and were signed by City Manager, Tom Harmening. It was also noted that work group members are welcome to attend Commission meetings. 4. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4m MINUTES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 6, 2016 Community Room, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Anderson, Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Rachel Harris, Renee McGarvey, Cindy Larson-O’Neil, Nancy Rose, Jayne Stevenson, Judy Voigt. EXCUSED ABSENCE: Shannon Pinc, City Staff STAFF PRESENT: Recording Secretary (Mary Pappas) GUESTS: Julie Rappaport, Work Group Member 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Introductions were made. 2. The minutes of the December 2, 2015 meeting were reviewed and approval was tabled to the February meeting. Business/Work Groups a. Zero Waste- Approval on position – Chair Gips noted he wrote a position statement to be sent to City Council. He stated he worked on multiple versions, and modified versions, before verbally sharing this with the Council. Judy explained she was concerned about some of the statements that were presented, especially since the Sustainability Commission had not reviewed it prior to presentation. Chair Gips noted the Commission had agreed on the statement in the minutes, but that he would include additional comments, that were his own comments, and not agreed upon by the full commission – and also that these comments would be presented to the Council with this caveat. Chris thanked both Chair Gips and Judy for their comments, but noted this must be a mis- communication and that the Commission should now move forward and discuss next steps. Ryan added it is important have agreement from the full Commission on their position related to the ordinance. He asked Chair Gips to distribute to the Commission what was presented. Chair Gips said he would have Shannon do this, and also wants to set aside time at the January 17th retreat to discuss this further. Commissioner Larson-O’Neil made a motion to complete the written statement from the December meeting and submit it to the City Council as the final word on this issue. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 2 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2016 After discussion, Commissioner Griffin made a friendly amendment to the motion stating that the Commission would like informal approval of the final document prior to submitting it to the Council. b. Education and Action – Julie Rappaport presented details on SLP SEEDS events to take place January 9 – 10, 2016. She also said SLP SEEDS is planning the Second Annual SLP Earth Day event on Sunday, April 17 and a flyer has been prepared that she shared. The day before on April 17 the City is hosting the Second Annual Organic Living Conference. There will be presentations by Pat Hamilton and Eureka Recycling and there will be a panel with City staff and exhibits. She encouraged the Commissioners to attend and help at the event. The Commission discussed if having the event on both Saturday and Sunday was practical, or if it should be spread out over 2 weekends. Julie and Judy noted that the Commissioners comments would be considered before the event is completely finalized, at the end of this week. It was decided to host the earth Day event on April 24 instead. Visioning and Education plan – Chair Gips stated there are two different components to consider. The first one relates to the City and he noted that Tom Harmening is interested in doing training for City employees, in order to encourage engagement and ownership. He also would like to have the City Council involved. Rachel noted this is a good step, so that staff will have a basis of understanding of the vision, and then can build on this. Chair Gips added that the plan would involve training for City Staff, City Council and the Community, and that Tom Harmening agrees to this. Chair Gips noted the second piece of this work would be the community involvement portion. The Commission discussed this and noted various possibilities of assisting with engagement including; multiple introductory presentations about sustainability, that could be presented various days and times and in various venues. At the end of each presentation, a mini-visioning session could be included, with workshops. Then, input from the broader community would be invited, finally allowing the work group and staff to create the actual vision. Rachel noted this is an exciting concept, but wondered how it might fit in with the Comprehensive Plan? Chair Gips stated the vision piece could feed into the Comprehensive Plan. Rachel asked if there was a timeline on this work and Chair Gips noted that there is not. Julie and Judy asked if the vision piece could be discussed at the Sunday afternoon Earth Day session. The Commission noted this could be a possibility, along with conducting a survey with the community at a later date. Cindy asked the Commission to remember it is held accountable to develop a vision and also to survey the community on this vision, as well. The Commission discussed facilitators for the visioning sessions, noting that Chair Gips has done this work with other cities and groups. Additionally, they noted that Barr City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 3 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2016 Engineering has facilitated discussions on vision with groups, and could be called upon to assist also. Chair Gips said he would like the Commission to further discuss this topic at the January retreat. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to approve that Sustainable SLP be a co-sponsor of the Earth Day events. Commissioner Griffin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Gips made a friendly amendment noting that decisions on any financing, including purchase of a permit, can be decided by City Staff. c. Communications – Chris noted the work group will write a recommendation on how to work with City Staff to adopt policies, practices and training related to social media. He stated this is a priority, and that a full communications plan will be written afterwards. Tips will be provided for all work groups and at the next meeting, the group will have information to present. d. Energy – Cindy noted the Partners for Energy meeting and that renewable energy will be the bulk of the work for this group. She would like to provide more details about the scope at the next meeting and have discussion. Ryan added this is a global problem and needs to be addressed at the local level with thoughtful businesses that are engaged. Cindy added the group has completed their vision work and is now focusing on four areas/activities, which will be implemented over the next 18 months. e. Water, Land, Wildlife – nothing to report. f. Transportation – Ryan gave a report related to Living Streets and engaging the broader stakeholder group over the next few months. He added they will be working on policy and how this can be included into the Comprehensive Plan. Rachel noted that Councilmember Lindberg would like a follow up meeting related to Dakota Avenue bike lanes, and the group will also work on this, with more information to follow. g. GreenStep Cities – The 2016 Plan was sent to the Commission for review. Chair Gips thanked Renee, Nancy and Shannon. He added that the goal is to move to Level 2 this year, but added that all surrounding cities are at Level 3, and he asked if there would be a chance St. Louis Park could achieve level 3 in 2016, even if certification would not be completed. Nancy commented that some of this would depend on City Staff. Chair Gips said Shannon can help with this, as well as a possible intern. Renee will look into finding an intern and make connections with the Board of Landscape Architects, on which she serves. Renee will also meet with Nancy to discuss further. 4. Chair Gips asked the Commissioners to send retreat agenda items to him and Shannon in advance of the January 17th retreat date. 5. Due to time constraints, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m., and the additional agenda items were not addressed. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 4 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2016 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4n OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission December 2, 2015, 6:30 p.m. Meeting The Rec Center Programming Office 1. Call to Order Ms. Griffin, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Commission members present: George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Edward Halvorson, and Kirk Hawkinson. Commission members absent: Jim Beneke and Peter May Staff present: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. 2. Presentations None. 3. Approval of Minutes a. October 21, 2015 It was moved by Commission member Hagemann to approve the minutes as presented; seconded by Commission member G. Foulkes. The motion passed 6 – 0. 4. Old Business a. Fastpitch Softball Field Update Ms. Walsh advised staff and Ms. Griffin met with the Fastpitch Association regarding field usage. The Association inquired on the amenities in each park as they felt some were underutilized. This discussion prompted a tour of various parks to review current and potential amenities. Mr. West indicated the association, along with himself and Mr. Beane, toured Louisiana Oaks, Minikahda Visa, Pennsylvania, and Twin Lakes Parks. Staff focused on Pennsylvania Park as an option as there is good parking, can add fencing and would meet their needs. The Association will discuss these findings with their board and return to staff with recommendations. Mr. Foulkes inquired on the difference between fastpitch fields and adult baseball fields. Mr. West advised the base distance is different and fastpitch prefers non-grass infields. Mr. West discussed field four at Aquila Park, which mainly hosts women’s softball and has good participation, along with the fields at the School District. The Association was City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4n) Page 2 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 advised the method to contact the School District for field reservations. Various issues were brought up and discussed at the park tours. Ms. Walsh complimented Ms. Griffin on her role in the discussion. The Association gained a great deal of awareness at the tour/meeting. b. Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan (Jason West) Mr. West reviewed the steps taken toward the creation of a master plan for Westwood Hills Nature Center. Staff went to Council in October to discuss the plan and advise of the architect firm selected, Miller Dunwiddie. The master plan has two focuses: facility and programming needs. There are also opportunities for public input. Citizens were asked to complete surveys at the Westwood Hills Nature Center Halloween Party and the Rec Center Halloween Party. An online survey was established to gather information plus public meetings held. The public provided feedback on where they’d like to see the building, trails, activities they’d like, etc. The options discussed for the building were to save the existing building and keep it where it is currently located or to move the building closer to the parking lot by building a new one as the existing building is in very poor condition, is failing and too small. Ms. Walsh indicated the building could have classrooms plus be large enough to host wedding receptions as an option. Additional parking is in both options and the existing water amenities would remain, Mr. West indicated. Staff will present an update to Council in December and anticipate going back to Council in May with a proposal. Anticipate going to Council in May with proposal. The next public meeting to acquire input will be held Tuesday, January 12, 6 – 8 p.m. at Westwood Hills Nature Center. Mr. West commented the individuals that attend the public meetings express their passion about the nature center. 5. New Business a. Park Sign Review Ms. Walsh asked members to review three different options for new signage in the parks. Staff viewed neighboring park signs prior to the creation of the new signs. Mr. West indicated the city wanted the signs to be more positive. Members viewed options, discussed and provided suggested changes which will be passed along to the Park Superintendent for the creation of the new signs. b. Connect the Park (Jack Sullivan) Ms. Walsh introduced Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager. Mr. Sullivan distributed maps of the city and advised that in 2007 the Active Living plan began to address more ways for the community to get active. This discussion included how to connect trails, sidewalks, and bikeways. Throughout the year the plan has been refined City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4n) Page 3 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 and local trails have been addressed. In 2011- 2013 an extensive process undertook to reach neighborhoods and wards to discuss what the residents would like to see. Mr. Sullivan indicated the criteria used were half-mile spacing for bike facilities and a quarter-mile spacing for sidewalks. One main issue that arose from the discussions includes concern for trees lost. In 2014, Council approved infrastructure over a 10 year period. There was some resistance received but also excitement behind the initiatives. The school district helped increase enhancements for “Safe Routes to School”. The city began engaging residents with bike trials (share the road or designated trails) in the fall and now has six miles of bikeway, which will be completed in spring. The bikeway consists of 1.5 miles of trail plus four miles of sidewalk. The initiatives include replacing driveways, moving light or telephone poles, etc. The project is evolving and is adjusted annually depending on other projects taking place in the city. Projects are combined to take advantage of cost savings. There is funding set aside for three bridges crossing railroad tracks. One bridge will be in Dakota Park and the other two will be on the east and west side of Highway 100. There is also a new trail system behind the Municipal Service Center which was created with the partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. There will be a need for expanding the map to allow commuters to access light rail station platforms via sidewalks, trails, bicycles or bus. Staff is working through the final stages of planning with Met Council. Mr. Sullivan explained there will be a bridge over Beltline. There will be an underpass established at Wooddale Avenue and Louisiana Avenue will be grade separated from the railroad tracks. Once the light rail is installed, there will be physical barriers such as fencing, etc. on trails by railroad. Staff is working on how to make it more accessible to the trail system; how to get across railroad barriers. Health in the Park and Park the Street events helped acquire input on requests for trails. Council is supportive and has been a good process. The draft shows how the proposed project ties the city together. Mr. Hawkinson mentioned the City of Minneapolis is using cones as markers for “safe riding”. Mr. Sullivan advised they are called cycle tracks or barriers and they delineate the road. Sharing the road is the first level with designated bike lanes. The barriers are experimental but may use in some areas of St. Louis Park in the future. Mr. Sullivan indicated a lot of things in Minneapolis are experimental and funded as such to compile data on their success. Also, those streets in Minneapolis are wider and can accommodate the addition of barriers. The issues with barriers are how to plow around them, maintain them and what happens when they are knocked over. There is $25 million budgeted in the CIP to build trails but additional funds would be needed to maintain them. They want to be mindful of the infrastructure. Mr. Hagemann indicated trails have always been a topic of conversation amongst citizens. There is a new Facebook page created titled “Bike and Walk the Park” which encourages conversations on the page. The page is not facilitated by the city nor is it used for complaints. It’s a great place for people to provide comments. Mr. Hagemann complimented Mr. Sullivan on his responses to issues brought forth at a recent City Council meeting. Some individuals were opposed to the “Share the Road” City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4n) Page 4 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 option with parking issues being mentioned. Some issues were legitimate but may work out as the plan progresses. Mr. Sullivan indicated the plan needs to be flexible, using common sense, and continually adjusting and adapting to make it work. Commission members thanked Mr. Sullivan. c. Elect Officials for 2016 Mr. Foulkes motioned to appoint Ms. Foulkes as Chair; Ms. Griffin seconded. Motion passed 6 – 0. Ms. Foulkes nominated Mr. May as Vice Chair; Ms. Griffin seconded. The motion passed 6 – 0. Ms. Walsh reminded members of goal review at the January meeting in preparation for going to Council on February 22. 6. Staff Communication Mr. West advised the winter brochure, which was done in-house, has been mailed. The Communications Department is also working on a new map which combines the parks and trails map, a city map and Westwood Hills Nature Center map. The map is great information that is broken down by wards. The map will be shared at the next meeting. Discover St. Louis Park’s job is to promote St. Louis Park, Mr. West advised. They are looking at promoting the city with a festival site, potentially at West End on Gamble Drive. The street by Park Place Boulevard to the parking garages could be shut down for the festival, depending on the size of the event. The event coordinator would come to Recreation Division to assist in providing all permits needed (instead of going to the police, inspections, etc.). The Recreation Division has a packet of information for events to be held in Wolfe Park. Wolfe Park has held walks, runs, etc. Staff will bring information on the large event packet for West End once created. Ms. Walsh indicated the city was awarded a $400,000 Mighty Ducks grant for the Rec Center indoor refrigeration project. The project came in slightly under budget plus the grant received, staff will be asking Council to add in a couple bid alternatives. The alternatives include Low Emissivity ceiling to help with energy efficiency and changing to LED lights which also provides a $20,000 rebate from Xcel Energy. Staff applied for a Hennepin County grant in the amount of $200,000 for the Rec Center Outdoor Rink project, Ms. Walsh advised. One item that has contributed to redrawing of the project is to ensure ADA accessibility. It has to be ADA accessible and approved by State and Federal requirements. It was discussed to have no sides on the ramp and have it covered. An elevator would bring up to plaza level from main parking lot. The goal is to provide easily accessibility for closer parking. The plan is currently being drawn and scheduled to have plans and specification available the end of December or first week in January. Bid opening would occur in late January. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4n) Page 5 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2015 Mr. West advised of the U.G.L.Y. sweater run to be held this Sunday. This is the second year offered and have 200 participants registered so far. The race begins at 5:30 p.m. and will be held at Louisiana Oaks Park. The event is sponsored by Park Tavern. 7. Member Communication Members thanked Ms. Griffin for her tenure as Chair. Mr. Hagemann advised Arts and Culture Grants were approved and awarded by the City Council. The recipients are Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts in the amount of $2,000 for production of “They called Her Captain”, United Artist Collaborative in the amount of $7,500 for “The Illusionist: Shakespeare Reveals All-The Operetta” and Stacia Goodman in the amount of $6,500 for the creation of a themed mosaic piece to be displayed at the Rec Center. Mr. Hagemann encouraged members view and comment on the new Facebook page for Bike and Walk in the Park. He indicated there is also a new Facebook page for Cedar Knoll Dog Park similar to the one for Dakota Dog Park. Mr. Hagemann mentioned Friends of the Arts received assistance to improve staffing. Susan Schneck will create a position to assist in the transition for a new executive director or to assist if Ms. Schneck stays. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if there will be a display or event in the West End committed to the arts. Mr. Hagemann suggested the goal is to make a continual event to showcase local art. Mr. Hawkinson inquired when the ice rinks will be flooded. Ms. Walsh advised the temperature needs to remain below freezing for good ice conditions to be created. 8. Other / Future Agenda Items The next meeting will be held Wednesday, January 20, 2016. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member S. Foulkes and seconded by Commission member G. Foulkes to adjourn at 7:37 p.m. The motion passed 6–0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4o OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission January 20, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting The Rec Center Programming Office 1. Call to Order Ms. Foulkes, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Walsh added two old business items to the agenda: Westwood Hills Nature Center master plan update and an update on park signage. Commission members present: George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, George Hagemann, Edward Halvorson, Kirk Hawkinson and Peter May. Commission members absent: Elizabeth Griffin Staff present: Rick Beane, Parks Superintendent, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. 2. Presentation St. Louis Park Little League (Matt Moran) Matt Moran, President of the St. Louis Park Little league, presented an update. The association offers baseball to boys and girls ages 5 – 12 who live or attend school in St. Louis Park. Last year there were approximately 400 youth that participated. Due to the close proximity of Minneapolis, 10% of participants are from that city. The Little League sent a proposal to the Little League International to extend their boundaries to southwest Minneapolis. They are awaiting a response. The baseball season begins in January with winter clinics which teach the basics and work with coaches in groups. The core season is April through the end of July. The older level participants (ages 11-12) play approximately 18 games in a season and may participate in the Little League World Series. The levels of play include AAA / majors (ages 10-12), AA (ages 9 – 10), A (ages 7 – 8) and rookie (ages 5 – 6). The fees for the rookie level are $100; $125 for A level, $150 for AA level and $175 for AAA/majors. The fee is low compared to other communities plus scholarships are available. Typically there are 15 - 20 players per year that utilize scholarships. Some sponsors (i.e. local business that sponsor teams, etc.) assist with the scholarship fees. Mr. Moran indicated the association hopes to increase the interest in T-ball. The city currently oversees the T-ball program so Little League doesn’t push that option. Machine pitch play is provided to 5 to 6 year olds. They have one game and one practice per week to get kids and parents interested in the sport. Everyone can play; none are turned away. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4o) Page 2 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2016 The Association would like to expand the programs for 12-13 year olds as that’s when participation drops. Their goal is to keep kids in the game, Mr. Moran explained, so are looking at sponsorships to assist in growing the programs in that age group. The five fields with diamonds they us are excellent, expressed Mr. Moran, especially considering the use they get. The neighboring communities enjoy playing on the grass infields in St. Louis Park, plus the press box and concessions at Skippy field are appreciated. The Little League Association is working on the area at Skippy Field, indicated Mr. Moran. They would like fresh turf and have received a turf donation from the old metro dome. They would like to have a pitching facility available for all age groups. The association is in discussions with the school district on the possibility of adding a batting cage at the Middle School. Ms. Walsh encouraged the association to contact the Fastpitch Association for a partnership. Ms. Walsh inquired if Little League has participants from cities other than Minneapolis and if they provide any fields for usage. Mr. Moran explained Golden Valley has their own Little League. At this time the association does not use Minneapolis ball fields but will keep it in mind. The Little League has hosted district tournaments, which are good for the community, but are challenging due to lack of volunteers in the summer. Ms. Walsh directed Little League to connect with Discover St. Louis Park as they could assist with lodging, etc. in the city for the tournaments. Members thanked Mr. Moran for attending the meeting and for his volunteer efforts with the Association. Mr. Beane commented “it is a pleasure to work with the Little League group”. 3. Approval of Minutes a. December 2, 2015 Commission member May requested a revision to page 2, topic 5a., second line down. The minutes should state “…of the new signs Mr. West…”. Commission member May requested a revision to page 3, third paragraph, fourth line down. The minutes should state “…fencing, etc. on trails by railroad”. Commission member May requested a revision to page 3, fourth paragraph, second to last sentence in paragraph. The minutes should state “There is $25 million budgeted in the CIP to build trails but additional funds would be needed to maintain them”. It was moved by Commission member Hagemann, seconded by Commission member May,to approve the December 2, 2015 meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7 – 0. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4o) Page 3 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2016 4. Old Business a. Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan Update (Jason West) Mr. West indicated the city hired Miller Dunwiddie to assist on the master plan process for Westwood Hills Nature Center. The last public meeting was held on January 12. A few requests that arose from the public meetings include: moving the facility closer to the parking lot; making facility more accessible; making the trail system around or through the building; and increasing the parking. Mr. West provided a drawing of the proposed location of the building, path and parking area. Miller Dunwiddie displayed boards at the public meeting (which were presented to the commission members) to show options for what the building could look like. They discussed programming rooms (which could open to accompany 150 people overall), a sitting room/observation room, office space, catering kitchen and storage. Mr. Hagemann included that the building will be designed with various options presented at the public meeting. Some options discussed include a fire pit, outdoor fire place, outdoor programming area, plus what the building would include. The building discussions included the entrance, restrooms, exhibit hall, and three classrooms to fit 50 people each. If the classrooms are being utilized, individuals could visit the exhibits and observation areas without disturbing the classrooms. Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the trail through building and expressed concern it would disturb the classrooms. Mr. Foulkes indicated in his group it was discussed the trail could either go through the building via the exhibit/observation area and/or would go around the building. Mr. Hagemann shared that his group discussed having a separate kid’s education area from the regular trail. Mr. West indicated another group discussed a wet play area for kids. Mr. Foulkes complimented Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager, on his discussion with residents. Staff heard that residents would like more people to use the nature center as it’s a great amenity, Ms. Walsh commented, but do not want to over populate. The next step is to meet with peer focus groups and obtain information on their nature centers, along with come site visits, Mr. West indicated. Miller Dunwiddie will create a proposed plan and timeline. May be able to start on proposal in 4 - 5 years once funding is determined. b. Park Signage Update (Rick Beane) Mr. Beane advised changes to park signs were made per the Commission’s recommendation and showed an example of a hard-coated sign. Staff is obtaining quotes on hard-coated signage and standard printed signage. Staff will test both signs to determine how vandal proof they are. Members discussed and suggested more contrast to the colors on the sign. Staff will review with the Communications Director for final design. Mr. Beane indicated the signs are scheduled to be installed in the parks mid- summer. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4o) Page 4 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2016 5. New Business a. Discuss Annual Calendar and Goals for 2016 Ms. Walsh reviewed the process to present the Commissions goals to the City Council on Monday, February 22. The members discussed and decided the top three goals of the Commission for 2016 will be: community group relationships (include meeting with non- athletic groups), environmental stewardship (i.e. Minnehaha Creek clean-up), and to support city initiatives relating to Parks and Recreation (collaboration and internal support). Staff will prepare for the City Council meeting. Members decided to hold the Minnehaha Creek Clean up on Saturday, May 7 and the Staff Appreciation luncheon on Wednesday, September 14 at Oak Hill Park. b. 2016 Capital Improvement Projects (Rick Beane & Jason West) Mr. Beane and Mr. West updated the commission on the Capital Improvement Projects scheduled for 2016. Mr. Beane advised automated locks and security cameras will be added at Aquila and Louisiana Oaks Park buildings. Both buildings will have Wi-Fi connections. Carlson Park’s scoreboard will be replaced, the fencing at Carpenter Park Little League fields will be replaced. Playgrounds are scheduled for replacement in Jersey, Justad, Nelson and Wolfe Parks. The standard process, Mr. West explained, is to remove the old playground equipment and give it to “Kids around the World”, solicit bids, and host a neighborhood meeting to show proposals for the attendees to choose the playground equipment. Neighborhood meetings are published via direct mailing (around the specific neighborhood), social media and the city’s website. Anyone that attends the public meeting can vote; they do not need to live in the neighborhood. Staff will discuss how to increase promoting the meetings to obtain more votes for the equipment. Wolfe Park playground is scheduled for April 18, before Parktacular celebration. Nelson Park playground is scheduled to be replaced July 8 and Jersey/Justad Parks are scheduled to be replaced in mid-August, Mr. Beane explained. Mr. Beane explained trail work will occur at Oak Hill, Shelard and Wolfe Parks. The trails are in good condition due to the regular maintenance and care taken. Staff is working with Engineering to review processed that ensure the trails are smooth. The trail lights at Wolfe Park will also be retrofitted with LED lights. Mr. West explained the ravine bridge on the upper trail at Westwood Hills Nature Center will be replaced. Engineering may have a bridge available for the site that would be removed from somewhere else. Mr. West advised some projects scheduled at the Nature Center may be pushed back depending on the progress of the Nature Center master plan. The Rec Center Banquet Room is scheduled for new carpet and floor replacement, advised Mr. West. Floor replacement is also scheduled for the gallery and hallway. The refrigeration system replacement is currently underway. Ms. Walsh commented it is a busy time at The Rec Center. Members were reminded the Rec Center revenue will be lower this year due to one rink being down. Staff awaits the City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4o) Page 5 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2016 results of the bids for the outdoor rink as the work on both projects could happen at the same time. 6. Staff Communication Ms. Walsh advised of the new Zero Waste ordinance going into effect beginning January of 2017. Staff will begin to communicate to businesses that they must have compostable to-go containers by that time. Staff will invite Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator, to attend a future meeting to share details of the new ordinance. Mr. Beane shared that Ms. Fisher also applied for, and received, a grant to increase the number of recycling containers and bags in parks. This will double the number of recycling containers in parks. The outdoor ice rinks and open and busy, advised Mr. Beane. There are two new rinks this year located at Jersey and Twin Lakes Parks. Staff has received compliments on the clean buildings. There are also two new wind shelters built at Jersey and Jackley Parks. Ms. West distributed the new city, park and trail maps. The map combined three previous publications into one and include city streets, parks and trails, plus a map of the trails at Westwood Hills Nature Center. Staff is currently working on the summer brochure, Mr. West advised. The timeline of the brochure and process on creating the publication was reviewed. Mr. West reviewed an upcoming event, the Adventure Race, which is a bike trip around St. Louis Park to locate various items. The winner obtains reserved parking and front row seats at the Aquila Fireworks on July 4. Staff is also working on another publication which is a facility rental guide, Mr. West informed. Staff obtained guides from other communities for ideas in the creation of a guide. Networking and connecting as such assists in various areas of the field. Ms. Walsh advised staff recently attended the annual meeting of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manger, received the Jack Niles award and Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Supervisor, received the presidential award and programming section award. The city is fortunate to be part of the association. 7. Member Communication Mr. Hawkinson inquired if there is an age limit to participate in the Minnehaha Creek clean-up. He knows a second grade girl scout group that may be interested in volunteering. Staff advised the event is open to anyone as long as there is proper supervision. Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the relationship between the baseball associations. Staff indicated there are some issues but their relationship with one another is much better. 8. Other / Future Agenda Items The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 17. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4o) Page 6 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2016 On Monday, February 22, the Commission will meet, along with other boards and commissions, with the City Council in the Rec Center Banquet Room to discuss goals. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Hagemann and seconded by Commission member G. Foulkes to adjourn at 8:01 p.m. The motion passed 7–0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Consent Agenda Item: 4p OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission February 17, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting The Rec Center Programming Office 1. Call to Order Ms. Foulkes, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. Commission members present: George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Edward Halvorson, Kirk Hawkinson and Peter May. Commission members absent: none. Staff present: Rick Beane, Parks Superintendent, Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. 2. Presentation St. Louis Park Lacrosse (Joan Manicotti) Joan Manicotti, President of the St. Louis Park Lacrosse Association, presented an update on the association and distributed information. Ms. Manicotti has been president for two years and was a board member prior to that. She has two sons that played lacrosse. Lacrosse began as a high school club team then, in 2007, the association was created. The sport has grown to include youth boys, girls and high school boys. The program consists of boys U9 - U15 and girls U3 – U8. Ms. Manicotti advised the main seasons for Lacrosse are April – June for spring and July – August for summer. Their main season is spring. The association joined the newly formed Great Northern Lacrosse League which is for youth boys. The girls participate through MSLax and the high school boys participate in the Homegrown Lacrosse Leagues off season. The Lacrosse Association offers in-house leagues in the summer which work on the fundamentals of the sport. Participants that do not wish to participate in traveling join St. Louis Park’s league. The costs for lacrosse have decreased. Their 2015 successful fundraiser enabled them to lower the costs in hopes of recruiting younger players. Ms. Manicotti advised. Individuals were uncertain to try lacrosse due to the expensive equipment. This led to lower costs at the U9 and U11 levels. The association would like to have rental equipment available for people to try the sport. They do offer scholarships so all income levels can play. The coordinators at each age level determine the pricing for their group. They now have paid coaches also. Ms. Manicotti advised Kevin Reed left and the new high school coach is Chris Bixby. Mr. Bixby grew up on the east coast and has a MBA from Harvard. He coached JV in Edina last year. The association also hired a boys and girls coordinator. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4p) Page 2 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2016 In an effort to grow the program, they began offering fall and winter clinics. The clinics are offered at the Middle School gym to teach how to catch and throw. They also began a summer in-house league. Last year they hosted a youth girl’s state tournament which included 35 teams, at the Middle School and High School stadium. The association worked with the Recreation Division on the logistics of the tournament. A new field was built at the Middle School for lacrosse so are well established at that location. Ms. Manicotti complimented the city for their support. The Association had a successful year of fundraising through the sale of coupon cards. They helped cut expenses by printing the cards in-house which brought all the revenue to the association. This allowed for registration fees to be reduced. Ms. Manicotti advised some of the challenges they are facing include the lack of youth parent participation on the board. She feels part of the issue is lacrosse is seen as a new sport and parents are unsure if their child will like it and stay in it. Finding coaches is also an issue. It’s especially challenging when college age coaches are still in school. Another challenge Ms. Manicotti expressed is a lack of communication with the girl’s high school program. The association has invited the coach (a high school teacher) to board meetings and will continue to work on the cohesion with the high school program. Ms. Manicotti feels the most challenging aspect the association is facing is getting the word out about lacrosse. It is difficult to get parents to try the sport. This year they sent postcards to all youth in grades 2 - 8 in the school district. Ms. Walsh introduced Mr. Rick Beane, Park Superintendent. Mr. Beane indicated staff takes pride in the field conditions and will continue maintenance. There is a potential storage shed to be built as an Eagle Scout project for nets to prohibit balls from entering the parking lot. Ms. Manicotti stated her appreciation for the state of the turf. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the association has advertised the clinics? Ms. Manicotti indicated it was advertised in the Sun Sailor and on postcards. They do not have a designated marketing person; a lot of information is spread via word of mouth. Mr. Hagemann asked where pressure to make it a year-round program is coming from. Ms. Manicotti feels it is pressure to offer more opportunities for more play. Commission members and Ms. Manicotti traded thanks. 3. Approval of Minutes a. January 20, 2016 Commission member May requested a revision to page 3, first paragraph, third to last sentence in paragraph. The minutes should state “Mr. Hagemann included that the building will be designed with various options as presented at the public meeting”. It was moved by Commission member G. Foulkes, seconded by Commission member Griffin, to approve the January 20, 2016 meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7 – 0. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4p) Page 3 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2016 4. Old Business a. Outdoor Refrigeration Rink Update (Cindy Walsh) Ms. Walsh provided an update on the outdoor facility. The intention is to offer ice mid- November through mid-March then turf the facility. Staff has talked with the soccer and lacrosse Associations regarding another turf option for play in the spring. Staff could move the annual egg hunt to the facility as it has consistent ground plus could offer Little Tot Drop In outdoors every day of the week. This activity is currently held in the Banquet Room four mornings for two hours per day. In addition to sports and mentioned activities, it could be a backup for the Children’s First Ice Cream Social. Other options include a roller derby on the concrete area, concerts, craft fairs, farmers markets, or any other venues that would fit the space. In the winter the facility would primarily be hockey, open skating and potentially broomball leagues. Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the parking availability. Ms. Walsh advised there is additional parking planned on the west side of the facility, where the skate park is currently. Ms. Walsh indicated the item went before the Council at a Study Session last night. Bids for the project were received on February 2 and were over the anticipated amount. The city recently bid out portions of the indoor rink replacement project, of which 95% of the bids came in at budget. The city planned to bond $10 million with the additional coming from the general fund. The project will use $1.5 million from the Park Improvement fund. Staff talked with the Council last night and the Council will have it come back at the City Council meeting next week. The Hockey Association made a $1.55 million dollar, 10 year commitment to build the outdoor facility, which comes from pull tabs sold. After bids came in high, staff asked the Hockey Association if they could increase their commitment. The Association will discuss and advise the city. Turf and score boards are included in the project. Could add a sport court but not included in the budget. Mr. Hagemann inquired if the project were to be revised, it would need to wait until 2017 to construct? Ms. Walsh advised if it were pushed out a year, a year would be lost plus would cost more. If we do it now, some products could be combined with the Rec Center refrigeration project, which is currently under way, for a lower cost. The outdoor facility has a complicated and unique roof design which can be found nowhere in the state. The roof is estimated at $3 million alone. This is a very visual facility. Ms. Walsh will email commissioners the Council reports from February 16, 2016. 5. New Business a. Bridgewater Dominium Addition (Julie Grove) Julie Grove, Planning Assistant, introduced herself and indicated she is assisting Sean Walther until the planner position is filled. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4p) Page 4 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2016 Ms. Grove advised the subdivision ordinance requires discussion with the Commission. Bridgewater Bank has purchased the property at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. They proposed to build a 168 unit apartment complex with retail on the first floor and six stories high. The properties have been plotted as commercial use. The Planning Commission has not approved yet and a neighborhood meeting will need to be held. If approved by Council, the project would happen in the spring via phases. Community Development staff recommends accepting cash-in-lieu of land. The park dedication would be $252,000 plus trail dedication of $37,800. Councilmember Hagemann motioned to accept cash-in-lieu in the amount of $289,800, Commission member May seconded. The motion passed 7 - 0. b. Arlington Row Apartments East (Julie Grove) Ms. Grove presented the proposal for Arlington Row Apartments which would be located in the northwest corner of the city, south of Wayzata Boulevard and east of Texas Avenue. The proposed is from Melrose Company for one, 27-unit building with on-site parking. A Livable Communities Grant was received from Met Council. This was previously thought as seven lots but actually 12 lots. This project would bring $30,000 to park dedication and $4,500 to trail dedication. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this project. The major issues were property values, parking on 13th Lane, traffic, and crime. If approved by Council, this project would take place in spring via phases. Commission member Hagemann motioned to accept cash-in-lieu in the amount of $34,500, Commission member G. Foulkes seconded. The motion passed 7 – 0. c. Emerald Ash Borer Update (Jim Vaughan) Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, provided an update on Emerald Ash Borer and indicated ash trees are wind pollinated. A handout was provided to Commissioners on EAB. Unhealthy ash trees have been removed and replaced, one for one, with other varieties of trees. Staff is replanting a variety of native trees to diversify the tree stock. Council recently reviewed the insecticide injection plan proposed by staff. Council approved moving forward with injecting the trees which will cost an additional $30,000 per year for the injections. In the past six to eight years the infestation has increased. It is hard to detect the disease as the insects are in the bark. Generally the insects are in the trees three – four years before the infestation can be seen. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if injecting the trees saves them. Mr. Vaughan replied it will kill insects on contact but will not save infested trees. Mr. Hagemann inquired if residents are offered the insecticide at the contract rate for trees on private property (similar to Oak Wilt). Mr. Vaughn advised they are not as there’s not enough funding. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4p) Page 5 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2016 6. Staff Communication Mr. Vaughan provided dates of the Pick up the Park event (April 22), the Rain Garden Workshop (May 25) and other upcoming events listed in the summer Park & Rec brochure. The Minnehaha Creek clean-up will be held on May 7 from 9 – 11 a.m. at the Knollwood canoe landing area. Ms. Walsh commented last year’s Organic Living Workshop, held in April, and had great attendance. Mr. Vaughan indicated approximately 150 people attended the event. This year Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator, and Shannon Pinc, Environmental and Sustainability Coordinator, will be present at the event to be held on April 16. The goal is to have a good mix of exhibitors present. Mr. Vaughan invited Commission members to attend the events. The Arbor Day and Tree Planting celebration will be held on May 14 at Bass Lake Preserve. Tree planting will begin by Belt Line Boulevard. Mr. Vaughan described the events to the members and invited them to participate. The event is partnered with Tree Trust, who does a lot of work in the city. Staff applied for and received an urban forestry and inventory grant from Minnesota Green Corp. This is part of AmeriCorps, who employs recent graduates that have an interest in volunteering. The Public Works Department has Cartegraph, a software program for park inventory. The 11- month grant, allows a Green Corp person to update the tree inventory so it can be imported into Cartegraph. Mr. Beane will also begin working in the program to update the data. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if a second grade girl scout group could participate in the Minnehaha Creek clean-up: Mr. Hawkinson will have a leader contact Mr. Vaughan for details. Mr. Beane advised the power feed for the Rec Center had to be relocated due to the refrigeration project. The project was slightly delayed due to weather and waiting for Xcel Energy to move the power box. The west rink will be removed and replaced first; then the east rink will be removed and replace. This time of year is challenging to do this project as equipment needs to be covered. Four playgrounds will be replaced in 2016, Mr. Beane advised. Requests for Proposals were sent February 12. The playground in Justad Park will have a playground review meeting on March 10 at Fire Station 1 at 7 p.m.; the playground for Jersey Park will be chosen at a community meeting to be held on March 10 at Nelson Park; and the large playground at Wolfe Park will be chosen at a community meeting held March 8 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Wolfe Park Building. The old playgrounds will be removed and reused/recycled through Kids Around the World. Mr. Hawkinson suggested adding a plaque by the playground which displayed where the old playground was relocated to serve as a formal recognition of the program. Due to the cold weather, the outdoor rinks were extended an extra week. The new last day will be Sunday, February 21. The rink season was a success, advised Mr. Beane. Mr. Beane advised Wi-Fi has been added to Louisiana Oaks Park building so now that building will have automated door locks and security camera surveillance. Aquila Park building will have Wi-Fi this year. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 4p) Page 6 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2016 The fishing dock was removed and replaced at Wolfe Park, Mr. Beane commented. The Community Gardens at Nelson Park will expand. Staff is proposing raised gardens for the handicap accessibility plus expand the gardens. Staff will host a neighborhood meeting but are waiting for a list of gardens to assist. Ms. Walsh advised the plan is to host a neighborhood meeting once in every three years. Mr. Beane advised the Utah Pond area is asking for a gag pit and bocce ball court. Staff is on a secondary mowing schedule but needs some commitment to assist with weed control. 7. Member Communication Mr. Foulkes advised the Commission of the Empty Bowls event to be held March 10 for lunch and evening. The event will be held at Westwood Lutheran Church. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if any bandy teams request use of the rink. Ms. Walsh advised they utilize a different size rink. 8. Other / Future Agenda Items On Monday, February 22, the Commission will meet, along with other boards and commissions, with the City Council in the Rec Center Banquet Room to discuss their annual goals. The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 16. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Hagemann and seconded by Commission member G. Foulkes to adjourn at 8:04 p.m. The motion passed 7–0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district). (The EDA will have considered establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District earlier in the evening.) POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District to facilitate future redevelopment at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd? SUMMARY: In early 2012, the City's Inspection Dept. declared the former Santorini restaurant building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd as Structurally Unsafe and ordered its repair or removal. Later in the year, prior to the building’s demolition, the EDA adopted a resolution citing the property as structurally substandard and pre-qualified it for a potential Redevelopment TIF District should a project that met the City's vision for the property emerge. The restaurant building was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014. Statutorily, the City has three years after the completion of demolition to create a TIF district on the property. In order for the EDA to preserve its ability to utilize tax increment to facilitate a future redevelopment on the subject site, it needs to establish a TIF district. The primary difficulty of redeveloping the subject site is that it has unstable structural soils and any multi-story building will likely incur significant extraordinary expenses. These expenses will prove financially challenging to most projects and likely result in a request for financial assistance. The rationale for creating a TIF district on the subject site was discussed at the January 11th Study Session where there was consensus support for establishing such a district. Authorizing the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd TIF District will not, in itself, commit the EDA to providing any financial assistance to a proposed project on the subject site. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse a future redeveloper for a portion of its qualified project costs should the EDA agree to do so. Once established, the EDA will have approximately four years to commit tax increment to a qualified project before the District must be decertified. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated cost to create the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District is approximately $25,000 with such expenses to be paid by the Development Fund. District expenses could be reimbursed by the eventual redeveloper of the subject site through a Redevelopment Contract. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution TIF District Overview TIF Plan Redevelopment Area Maps Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On November 10, 2011, the City’s Inspection Department inspected the former Santorini restaurant building located at 9920 Wayzata Blvd following reports to the Police Department that the building had been broken into and vandalized. On January 23, 2012, the City's Inspection Dept. sent a letter to the property owner declaring both the building and former garage building located next door at 9808 Wayzata Blvd (“subject site”) had fallen into such disrepair that they were unsafe and a public nuisance as specified in Minnesota State Building Code Section 1300.0180 and therefore ordered their repair or removal. On June 18, 2012, prior to the restaurant building’s demolition, the EDA adopted a resolution citing both properties as structurally substandard and pre-qualified them for a potential Redevelopment TIF District should a project that met the City's vision for the site emerge. The restaurant building was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014. Statutorily, the City has three years after the completion of demolition to create a TIF district on a property. At the January 11th Study Session, it was the consensus of the EDA that it wished to preserve its ability to utilize tax increment to facilitate a future redevelopment that met with its vision for the subject site and directed staff to pursue the formal establishment of a TIF district on the site. Authorizing the establishment of the TIF District will not, in itself, commit the EDA to providing any financial assistance for a proposed project on the subject site. Procedurally, it simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse a future developer for a portion of its qualified project costs. Once established, the EDA will have approximately four years to commit tax increment to a project before the district must be decertified. Subject redevelopment site: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd Current Conditions The subject redevelopment site is approximately 2.6 acres and consists of two properties: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. It is located in the upper northwest quadrant of the city within the Shelard Park Neighborhood. It is bound by the Westmarke Condominiums to the west, the MetroPoint Office Park to the north, US Highway 169 to the east and I-394 to the south. The subject site is currently vacant, and given its proximity to the highway interchange, is highly City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District visible. The site has been subject to occasional dumping which has created a public nuisance. According to the St. Louis Park Plan by Neighborhood Input Report dated July 2009, “the most critical neighborhood improvement identified [within the Northwest Neighborhood Planning Area] was decreasing public nuisances, which was primarily related to concerns about [property] maintenance...” Encouraging redevelopment of the subject site is consistent with this objective. Potential Uses Given its location, it is envisioned that the subject site would be conducive to a multi-story office building, hotel, or apartment building or some combination thereof with associated structured parking. Such buildings would be complementary to, and create synergies with, the surrounding land uses. Additionally, these potential uses are viable under current market conditions and consistent with the City Council’s preference to see the property redeveloped with some intensity and density. Need for Tax Increment The subject site is former lakebed and as a result has unstable structural soils. Any building beyond a single story will likely require extensive foundation work. A developer looking to construct multi-story buildings on the site will likely incur the following extraordinary costs: soil excavation, export and import; structural piling, underground storm water management; and structured underground parking. Depending on the project’s density, these costs will likely prevent such a project from achieving financial feasibility. In order to offset a portion of these anticipated extraordinary costs a TIF District is pro-actively being established to provide financial assistance so as to enable a prospective project similar to ones described above to proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that project for a limited period of time. TIF District Approvals The EDA/City Council discussed the rationale for creating a TIF district on the subject site at the January 11th Study Session where it received consensus support. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed TIF District. At its February 1st, meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of March 21, 2016 for consideration of the establishment of the proposed Wayzata Blvd Redevelopment TIF District. The Planning Commission reviewed the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing Plan on March 16th, as required by the TIF Act, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Synopsis of the Proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District The proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District is being established to facilitate the future construction of a multi-story office building, hotel, or apartment building or some combination thereof with associated structured parking. Statutorily TIF districts must be located within a Project Area or Redevelopment Area. The proposed Wayzata TIF District lies outside the current boundaries of the city’s Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. Therefore, within the Wayzata TIF District Plan the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the City’s corporate boundaries (see attached Redevelopment Project Area Maps). With the modification, the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District will lie within the required Redevelopment Project Area and eliminates the need for any further modifications in the future. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District As shown in the attached TIF District map, the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District consists of two parcels: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd and adjoining rights-of-way. Together, these parcels equal approximately 2.6 acres. Attached is an Overview which summarizes the basic elements of the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District. Details of the proposed TIF District may be found in the attached Wayzata Blvd TIF District Plan. Both the Overview and TIF Plan were prepared by the EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers. In a general sense, TIF Plans may be viewed as enabling legislation. They establish the proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic boundaries, maximum duration, maximum budget authority for tax increment revenues and expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well as estimated impact on various taxing jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify the district. The specific mutual obligations between the EDA and a redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial assistance would be contained in the separate Redevelopment Contract between the parties. Both the TIF Plan and a Redevelopment Contract need to be approved in order for redevelopment projects involving tax increment to proceed. Qualifications of the Proposed TIF District According to the Plan by Neighborhood section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, one of the Shelard Park Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (identified through a neighborhood input process) is:  Redevelop vacant and underutilized properties/buildings along Wayzata Boulevard (frontage road north side of I-394) The subject site is both vacant and underutilized. The land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site and proposed TIF District is Office. The subject property likewise lies within an Office Zoning District. Prospective projects envisioned in the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF Plan for the subject site include a multi- story office building, hotel or multi-family apartment building or some combination thereof. All such uses are consistent with site’s land use designation and are permitted uses (with conditions or by CUP) under the City’s Zoning Code. Thus, the prospective projects described in the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF Plan conform to the Office land use designation within the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site. The proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District meets the necessary statutory requirements of a redevelopment TIF district based on the following findings:  Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.  An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan). Additional findings were quantified in a subsequent Substandard Building Analysis Memo to the Community Development Department dated October 8, 2013.  On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09, the EDA found that the subject parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 5 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. The restaurant building was then demolished in February 2013 and the garage was removed in July 2014. Thus the proposed Wayzata Blvd TIF District meets both the “Coverage Test” and the “Condition of Buildings Test” and thereby qualifies under Minnesota Statutes Section 479.174, Subdivision 10 as a redevelopment TIF district. Other findings for the qualification of the proposed TIF District are contained in Appendix G of the attached TIF Plan. Duration of the Proposed TIF District Under the TIF Act, the duration of redevelopment districts is up to 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). Given the uncertainty as to when development will occur on the subject site, the EDA is electing to receive the first increment in 2020, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District would terminate after 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Once those obligations are satisfied, the City may terminate the district. TIF District Budget The TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment generated by the District to pay for certain qualifying project expenses and capital improvements associated with the District (such as soil excavation, exportation and importation, pilings, stormwater management, and structured parking) should they be necessary. It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within Subsection 3-10 (Uses of Funds) of the attached TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project budget. Fiscal Disparities Election within the Proposed TIF District The proposed redevelopment will contain commercial property therefore the proposed TIF District is subject to the fiscal disparities calculation. Consistent with the city’s TIF Policy and past practice, the Wayzata Blvd TIF District will contribute to fiscal disparities (as opposed to the tax base of the City making the contribution). TIF Interfund Loan The EDA is also requested to authorize an Interfund Loan to pay for certain qualified costs identified in the TIF Plan. Adoption of the proposed resolution will allow the EDA to pay costs related to the establishment and administration of the proposed TIF District, from non-TIF sources, and to reimburse itself from increment generated by the TIF District when received. Summary Providing tax increment financing assistance to facilitate redevelopment on the subject site will make it possible to construct a high quality project consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Livable Communities design principles and the community’s vision. Such assistance will likely be necessary to bring the subject site to optimal market value resulting in increased assessed value, new employment opportunities as well as provide the community with expanded office, hotel and housing choices. NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue working with developers on potential projects that conform to the subject site’s land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan, and are consistent with the Zoning Code as well as the City Council/EDA’s vision. Once such a project is identified it will be brought before the EDA for its consideration. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 6 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; ADOPTING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS THEREIN; AND ESTABLISHING THE WAYZATA BOULEVARD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City expand the geographic boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), adopt a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts therein (the "TIF Plan Modifications"), and establish the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification, the TIF Plan Modifications, and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The EDA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have caused the Plans to be prepared. 1.03. The EDA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 270 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, approval of the Plans by the EDA on March 21, 2016, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports, including the redevelopment qualifications reports and planning documents, include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 7 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The City is expanding the geographic boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City and is modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification. 2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically finds that: (a) the land within the Project area as expanded would not be available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. Section 3. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1. 3.01. The EDA and City have previously established the following Tax Increment Financing Districts within the Project: • 4900 Excelsior (County Number 1321) • Aquila Commons (County Number 1311) • Edgewood (County Number 1309) • Eliot Park (County Number 1318/1319) • Ellipse on Excelsior (County Number 1315) • Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (County Number 1312) • Hardcoat (County Number 1316) • Highway 7 Corporate Center 7 & HSTI (County Number 1313) • Mill City (County Number 1307) • Park Center (County Number 1304) • Park Commons (County Number 1308) • Shoreham (County Number 1320) • The West End (County Number 1314) • Wolfe Lake Commercial (County Number 1310) • Zarthan & 16th Street (County Number 1305 and 1306) 3.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 4(b)(1), the enlargement of the Project is deemed to be a modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within the Project. 3.03. The TIF Plan Modifications are amended to provide for the enlargement of the Project as described in the Redevelopment Plan Modification. Section 4. Findings for the Establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District. 4.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) of the Act. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 8 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 4.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. 4.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4.04. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. Section 5. Public Purpose 5.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF Plan. A private developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by a developer are incidental and do not outweigh the primary public benefits. Section 6. Approval and Adoption of the Plans 6.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development Coordinator. 6.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 6.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 9 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 6.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 10 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The District consists of two parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing, hotel, and/or office purposes. In meeting the statutory criteria to qualify the District as a redevelopment district, the City relies on the following facts and findings: - Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. - An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan). - On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09 (the “EDA Resolution”), the EDA found that the parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. Demolition was completed on July 9, 2014. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that each of the projects proposed for the District meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Historically, due to the high cost of redevelopment within the City for housing, hotel, and office purposes and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, these projects would be feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost of any of the projects proposed within the District. As stated above, high redevelopment costs in this area have made most redevelopment City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Page 11 Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District infeasible without tax increment assistance. Any projects that could potentially move forward without public assistance would necessarily be much smaller in scope, and would not fully put the property in the District to its highest and best use. Thus, the City finds that no other redevelopment of similar scope can reasonably be anticipated on this site without assistance substantially similar to that provided for comparable projects in the past. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $34,989,000. c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $12,178,330. d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $22,810,670 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. Each of the projects proposed to be constructed within the District would result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of St. Louis Park Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete Tax Increment Financing Plan. Proposed action:  Establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan).  Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 which includes the geographic expansion of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District, which represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.  Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1, which reflect the geographic expansion of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City. Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district Parcel Numbers: 01-117-22-14-0018 01-117-22-14-0002 Proposed Development: The District is being created to facilitate the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story building with approximately 150 units of rental housing, and/or a multi-story office building with approximately 40,000 square feet, and structured parking associated with each. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description. Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment (26 years of increment). The City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020. It is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after December 31, 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. Estimated annual tax increment: Up to $1,260,050 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 12 Page 2 Authorized uses: The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that may be expended: Land/Building Acquisition .................................................. $2,500,000 Site Improvements/Preparation ........................................... $1,500,000 Public Utilities .................................................................... $1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements ......................................... $8,172,214 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ....................................... $2,251,175 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .............................................. $15,423,389 Interest ................................................................................ $9,339,532 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ........................................... $24,762,921 See Subsection 3-10, on page 3-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund loan. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Interfund Loan Requirement: The EDA will be approving an interfund loan to pay for administrative and/or capital expenses that will be incurred prior to receiving the first TIF dollars from the District. 4 Year Activity Rule (§ 469.176 Subd. 6) After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:  Demolition  Rehabilitation  Renovation  Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by approximately March 2020, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule (§ 469.1763 Subd. 3) Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be expended or obligated to be expended. Any obligations in the District made after approximately March 2021, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the City resolution. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 13 Page 3 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 14 Page 4 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 15 As of March 14, 2016 Draft for Public Hearing Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: March 21, 2016 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 16 Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 1-1 Foreword ............................................................. 1-1 Section 2 - Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Background ............................................. 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Modification............................................. 2-1 Section 3 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District ............................. 3-1 Subsection 3-1. Foreword............................................... 3-1 Subsection 3-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 3-1 Subsection 3-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 3-1 Subsection 3-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 3-1 Subsection 3-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 3-2 Subsection 3-6. Classification of the District................................. 3-2 Subsection 3-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 3-4 Subsection 3-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 3-4 Subsection 3-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 3-5 Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 3-6 Subsection 3-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 3-6 Subsection 3-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 3-7 Subsection 3-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 3-8 Subsection 3-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 3-8 Subsection 3-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 3-10 Subsection 3-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 3-10 Subsection 3-17. Modifications to the District................................ 3-10 Subsection 3-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 3-11 Subsection 3-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 3-12 Subsection 3-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 3-13 Subsection 3-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 3-13 Subsection 3-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 3-13 Subsection 3-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 3-14 Subsection 3-24. Administration of the District ............................... 3-14 Subsection 3-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 3-14 Subsection 3-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 3-14 Subsection 3-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 3-15 Subsection 3-28. Summary.............................................. 3-15 Appendix A Project Description ...................................................... A-1 Appendix B Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 17 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 18 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District and the expansion of the geographic area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 as described below. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 19 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 2-1 Section 2 - Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 Subsection 2-1 Background The purpose of the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 is to provide for the enlargement of Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City. Subsection 2-2 Modification The EDA and City are hereby modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the following Tax Increment Financing Districts to reflect the expansion of the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1: • 4900 Excelsior (County Number 1321) • Aquila Commons (County Number 1311) • Edgewood (County Number 1309) • Eliot Park (County Number 1318/1319) • Ellipse on Excelsior (County Number 1315) • Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (County Number 1312) • Hardcoat (County Number 1316) • Highway 7 Corporate Center 7 & HSTI (County Number 1313) • Mill City (County Number 1307) • Park Center (County Number 1304) • Park Commons (County Number 1308) • Shoreham (County Number 1320) • The West End (County Number 1314) • Wolfe Lake Commercial (County Number 1310) • Zarthan & 16th Street (County Number 1305 and 1306) (Collectively, the "TIF Districts"). The following sentence is to be inserted into the Tax Increment Financing Plan for each of the TIF Districts: The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, as shown on Appendix A hereto. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 20 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-1 Section 3 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 3-1. Foreword The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Wayzata Boulevard Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 3-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 3-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate redevelopment of these parcels. Viable proposed uses include the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story building with approximately 150 units of rental housing, and/or a multi-story office building with approximately 40,000 square feet, and structured parking associated with each. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA has not entered into an agreement or designated a developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur in 2017 or early 2018. The uses contemplated by this TIF Plan are expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Subsection 3-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 21 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-2 Subsection 3-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 3-6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: (xvi) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; (xvii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (xviii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 22 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-3 to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph (e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; (2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and (4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f). (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. (f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • The District is a redevelopment district consisting of two parcels. • Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. • An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (See Appendix F). City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 23 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-4 • On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09 (the “EDA Resolution”), the EDA found that the parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix F), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. Demolition was completed on July 9, 2014. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 3-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The EDA elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 3-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2015 for taxes payable 2016. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2018) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2020. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 24 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-5 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,104,112 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $37,538 Fiscal Disparities Contribution $117,434 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $949,140 Original Local Tax Rate 1.32757 EstimatedPay 2016 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,260,050 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $271,575. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 3-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $22,511,746 Interest $2,251,175 TOTAL $24,762,921 The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $15,423,389. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 25 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-6 you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of a multi-story hotel with approximately 120 rooms, a multi-story apartment building with approximately 150 units and structured parking associated with each. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $1,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $3,500,000 Utilities $1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $7,672,214 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,251,175 PROJECT COST TOTAL $15,423,389 Interest $9,339,532 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $24,762,921 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 3-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 26 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-7 current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 3-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 27 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-8 (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 3-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 3-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows on the next page if the "but for" test was not met: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 28 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-9 IMPACT ON TAX BASE Estimated 2015/Pay 2016 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,467,566,893 949,140 0.0647% City of St. Louis Park 57,090,028 949,140 1.6625% Hopkins ISD No. 270 103,765,150 949,140 0.9147% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Estimated Pay 2016 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Hennepin County 0.453140 34.13% 949,140 430,093 City of St. Louis Park 0.481170 36.24% 949,140 456,698 Hopkins ISD No. 270 0.288880 21.76% 949,140 274,188 Other 0.104380 7.86%949,140 99,071 Total 1.327570 100.00%1,260,050 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2016 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates and figures, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $22,511,746; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City tracks all calls for service by neighborhood and property type. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. Sidewalk and lighting costs will be approximately $50,000. The current sanitary sewer (SAC) connection fee is $2,485 and the water (WAC) connection fee is $750. However, the total amount of units to be charged will be determined by the Metropolitan Council. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 29 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-10 The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $4,898,556; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,683,259; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 3-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: • A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing. Subsection 3-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 3-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 30 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-11 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 3-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 31 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-12 (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 3-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 32 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-13 The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately March 2020 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 3-20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 3-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 33 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-14 Subsection 3-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 3-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 3-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator. Subsection 3-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 3-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 34 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-15 increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 3-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 3-28. Summary The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 35 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District 3-16 the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 36 Appendix A-1 Appendix A Project Description The District is being created to facilitate the construction of either a multi-story office building with approximately 40,000 square feet, a hotel with approximately 120 rooms, an apartment building with approximately 150 units, or some combination thereof along with underground or structured parking associated with each development. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 37 Appendix B-1 Appendix B Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 38 TIF Districts Legend Redevelopment Project Area TIF Districts 4900 Excelsior (2041) Aquila Commons (2032) Edgewood (2025) Eliot Park (2040) Ellipse on Excelsior (2036) Elmwood Village/Hoigaard Village (2029) Hardcoat (2022) Highway 7 CC & HSTI (2032) Mill City (2026) Park Center (2023) Park Commons (2027) Shoreham (2041) The West End (2036) Wayzata Blvd (Proposed) Wolfe Lake Commercial (2031) Zarthan & 16th Street (2026) Updated January 2016 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department ± (Legal Maximum Term Limit) 010.5 Miles The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City of St. Louis Park. Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Districts City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 39 ´ Wayzata Blvd TIF District Legend Redevelopment Project No. 1 Wayzata Blvd TIF District Parcels February 1, 2016 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 3,600 0 3,6001,800 Feet Proposed TIF District City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 40 Appendix C-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 01-117-22-14-0018 9920 Wayzata Blvd 9920 Hotels LLC 01-117-22-14-0002 9808 Wayzata Blvd 9920 Hotels LLC Legal description of Property to be Including in the District: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along the most Southerly line of said Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a distance of 114.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning. [Torrens Certificate No. 1212398] AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance of 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 said Block 7; thence South 02 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 and the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning. [Torrens Certification No. 1335184] Together with the adjacent portion of that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117 North, Range 20 North, shown as Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27- 3, lying Northerly of Line 1 described as follows: Line 1: Beginning at Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence Easterly on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said plat of 214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; then continue on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds for 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left for 350.87 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the North and passing through right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as shown on said Plat 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18 minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds for 7.37 feet to the Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said plat No. 27-23 and there terminating. [Abstract property] City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 41 Appendix D-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 42 2/17/2016Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2018Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,0002.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-18Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-19Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2016First $100,0000.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2020Over $100,0000.25%Years of Tax Increment26Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2045First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio29.7759% Pay 2016 PrelimFirst $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate150.2620% Pay 2016 PrelimOver $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 132.757% Pay 2016 PrelimAgricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 132.757% Pay 2016 PrelimState-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 49.0000% Pay 2016 PrelimMarket Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.18722% Pay 2016 PrelimBuilding Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.101-117-22-14-00189920 Wayzata Blvd1,011,0000 1,011,000100% 1,011,000 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.19,470 Rental12,638 01-117-22-14-00189920 Wayzata Blvd100,0000 100,000100% 100,000 Pay 2016 C/I2,000 Rental1,250 201-117-22-14-00029808 Wayzata Blvd1,020,0000 1,020,000100% 1,020,000 Pay 2016 C/I20,400 C/I Pref.19,650 01-117-22-14-00029808 Wayzata Blvd200,0000 200,000100% 200,000 Pay 2016 C/I4,000 C/I4,000 2,331,0000 2,331,0002,331,000 45,87037,538Note:1. Base values are for pay 2016 based upon review of County website on 2-16-16.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xlsCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 43 2/17/2016Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelEstimated TaxableTotal Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2018201920202021 PayableApt180,000180,000 150 27,000,000 Rental337,5002,250 50%100%100%100%2021Hotel 86,00086,000 120 10,320,000 C/I Pref. 205,6501,714 50%100%100%100%2021TOTAL37,320,000543,150 Subtotal Residential150 27,000,000337,500 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.120 10,320,000205,650 Note:1. Market values are based upon email from City Assessor on 8-4-15.TotalFiscal LocalLocalFiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApt337,5000337,500 448,0550050,549 498,604 3,324.03Hotel 205,650 61,234 144,416 191,722 92,012 100,76919,321 403,823 3,365.20TOTAL 543,150 61,234 481,916 639,777 92,012 100,76969,871 902,428Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes902,428Current Market Value - Est.2,331,000less State-wide Taxes(100,769)New Market Value - Est.37,320,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(92,012) Difference34,989,000less Market Value Taxes(69,871)Present Value of Tax Increment12,178,330less Base Value Taxes(40,485) Difference22,810,670Annual Gross TIF 599,292Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:22,810,670 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xlsCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 44 2/17/2016Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Santorini Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park150-Unit Apartment and 120-Unit HotelTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/19- - - - 08/01/19- - - - 02/01/20100% 271,575 (37,538) (23,575) 210,462 132.757% 279,404 139,702 (503) (13,920) 125,279 115,738 0.5 2020 08/01/20100% 271,575 (37,538) (23,575) 210,462 132.757% 279,404 139,702 (503) (13,920) 125,279 229,207 1 2020 02/01/21100% 543,150 (37,538) (54,192) 451,420 132.757% 599,292 299,646 (1,079) (29,857) 268,711 467,815 1.5 2021 08/01/21100% 543,150 (37,538) (54,192) 451,420 132.757% 599,292 299,646 (1,079) (29,857) 268,711 701,744 2 2021 02/01/22100% 559,445 (37,538) (56,029) 465,878 132.757% 618,485 309,243 (1,113) (30,813) 277,317 938,431 2.5 2022 08/01/22100% 559,445 (37,538) (56,029) 465,878 132.757% 618,485 309,243 (1,113) (30,813) 277,317 1,170,477 3 2022 02/01/23100% 576,228 (37,538) (57,921) 480,769 132.757% 638,255 319,127 (1,149) (31,798) 286,181 1,405,244 3.5 2023 08/01/23100% 576,228 (37,538) (57,921) 480,769 132.757% 638,255 319,127 (1,149) (31,798) 286,181 1,635,409 4 2023 02/01/24100% 593,515 (37,538) (59,870) 496,107 132.757% 658,617 329,308 (1,186) (32,812) 295,311 1,868,259 4.5 2024 08/01/24100% 593,515 (37,538) (59,870) 496,107 132.757% 658,617 329,308 (1,186) (32,812) 295,311 2,096,544 5 2024 02/01/25100% 611,320 (37,538) (61,878) 511,905 132.757% 679,590 339,795 (1,223) (33,857) 304,714 2,327,479 5.5 2025 08/01/25100% 611,320 (37,538) (61,878) 511,905 132.757% 679,590 339,795 (1,223) (33,857) 304,714 2,553,887 6 2025 02/01/26100% 629,660 (37,538) (63,945) 528,177 132.757% 701,192 350,596 (1,262) (34,933) 314,400 2,782,910 6.5 2026 08/01/26100% 629,660 (37,538) (63,945) 528,177 132.757% 701,192 350,596 (1,262) (34,933) 314,400 3,007,443 7 2026 02/01/27100% 648,550 (37,538) (66,075) 544,937 132.757% 723,442 361,721 (1,302) (36,042) 324,377 3,234,559 7.5 2027 08/01/27100% 648,550 (37,538) (66,075) 544,937 132.757% 723,442 361,721 (1,302) (36,042) 324,377 3,457,221 8 2027 02/01/28100% 668,006 (37,538) (68,268) 562,200 132.757% 746,360 373,180 (1,343) (37,184) 334,653 3,682,433 8.5 2028 08/01/28100% 668,006 (37,538) (68,268) 562,200 132.757% 746,360 373,180 (1,343) (37,184) 334,653 3,903,229 9 2028 02/01/29100% 688,046 (37,538) (70,528) 579,981 132.757% 769,966 384,983 (1,386) (38,360) 345,237 4,126,542 9.5 2029 08/01/29100% 688,046 (37,538) (70,528) 579,981 132.757% 769,966 384,983 (1,386) (38,360) 345,237 4,345,476 10 2029 02/01/30100% 708,688 (37,538) (72,855) 598,295 132.757% 794,279 397,140 (1,430) (39,571) 356,139 4,566,895 10.5 2030 08/01/30100% 708,688 (37,538) (72,855) 598,295 132.757% 794,279 397,140 (1,430) (39,571) 356,139 4,783,973 11 2030 02/01/31100% 729,948 (37,538) (75,252) 617,159 132.757% 819,322 409,661 (1,475) (40,819) 367,368 5,003,504 11.5 2031 08/01/31100% 729,948 (37,538) (75,252) 617,159 132.757% 819,322 409,661 (1,475) (40,819) 367,368 5,218,731 12 2031 02/01/32100% 751,847 (37,538) (77,720) 636,589 132.757% 845,116 422,558 (1,521) (42,104) 378,933 5,436,381 12.5 2032 08/01/32100% 751,847 (37,538) (77,720) 636,589 132.757% 845,116 422,558 (1,521) (42,104) 378,933 5,649,762 13 2032 02/01/33100% 774,402 (37,538) (80,263) 656,601 132.757% 871,684 435,842 (1,569) (43,427) 390,846 5,865,537 13.5 2033 08/01/33100% 774,402 (37,538) (80,263) 656,601 132.757% 871,684 435,842 (1,569) (43,427) 390,846 6,077,081 14 2033 02/01/34100% 797,634 (37,538) (82,882) 677,214 132.757% 899,049 449,525 (1,618) (44,791) 403,116 6,290,987 14.5 2034 08/01/34100% 797,634 (37,538) (82,882) 677,214 132.757% 899,049 449,525 (1,618) (44,791) 403,116 6,500,700 15 2034 02/01/35100% 821,563 (37,538) (85,580) 698,445 132.757% 927,235 463,618 (1,669) (46,195) 415,754 6,712,746 15.5 2035 08/01/35100% 821,563 (37,538) (85,580) 698,445 132.757% 927,235 463,618 (1,669) (46,195) 415,754 6,920,634 16 2035 02/01/36100% 846,210 (37,538) (88,359) 720,314 132.757% 956,267 478,133 (1,721) (47,641) 428,771 7,130,828 16.5 2036 08/01/36100% 846,210 (37,538) (88,359) 720,314 132.757% 956,267 478,133 (1,721) (47,641) 428,771 7,336,900 17 2036 02/01/37100% 871,596 (37,538) (91,221) 742,838 132.757% 986,169 493,085 (1,775) (49,131) 442,179 7,545,249 17.5 2037 08/01/37100% 871,596 (37,538) (91,221) 742,838 132.757% 986,169 493,085 (1,775) (49,131) 442,179 7,749,512 18 2037 02/01/38100% 897,744 (37,538) (94,169) 766,038 132.757% 1,016,969 508,485 (1,831) (50,665) 455,989 7,956,025 18.5 2038 08/01/38100% 897,744 (37,538) (94,169) 766,038 132.757% 1,016,969 508,485 (1,831) (50,665) 455,989 8,158,489 19 2038 02/01/39100% 924,677 (37,538) (97,205) 789,934 132.757% 1,048,693 524,346 (1,888) (52,246) 470,213 8,363,174 19.5 2039 08/01/39100% 924,677 (37,538) (97,205) 789,934 132.757% 1,048,693 524,346 (1,888) (52,246) 470,213 8,563,846 20 2039 02/01/40100% 952,417 (37,538) (100,332) 814,547 132.757% 1,081,368 540,684 (1,946) (53,874) 484,864 8,766,714 20.5 2040 08/01/40100% 952,417 (37,538) (100,332) 814,547 132.757% 1,081,368 540,684 (1,946) (53,874) 484,864 8,965,603 21 2040 02/01/41100% 980,989 (37,538) (103,554) 839,898 132.757% 1,115,024 557,512 (2,007) (55,550) 499,954 9,166,662 21.5 2041 08/01/41100% 980,989 (37,538) (103,554) 839,898 132.757% 1,115,024 557,512 (2,007) (55,550) 499,954 9,363,778 22 2041 02/01/42100% 1,010,419 (37,538) (106,872) 866,010 132.757% 1,149,689 574,844 (2,069) (57,277) 515,497 9,563,037 22.5 2042 08/01/42100% 1,010,419 (37,538) (106,872) 866,010 132.757% 1,149,689 574,844 (2,069) (57,277) 515,497 9,758,389 23 2042 02/01/43100% 1,040,732 (37,538) (110,289) 892,905 132.757% 1,185,394 592,697 (2,134) (59,056) 531,507 9,955,859 23.5 2043 08/01/43100% 1,040,732 (37,538) (110,289) 892,905 132.757% 1,185,394 592,697 (2,134) (59,056) 531,507 10,149,457 24 2043 02/01/44100% 1,071,954 (37,538) (113,809) 920,607 132.757% 1,222,170 611,085 (2,200) (60,889) 547,997 10,345,147 24.5 2044 08/01/44100% 1,071,954 (37,538) (113,809) 920,607 132.757% 1,222,170 611,085 (2,200) (60,889) 547,997 10,537,000 25 2044 02/01/45100% 1,104,112 (37,538) (117,434) 949,140 132.757% 1,260,050 630,025 (2,268) (62,776) 564,981 10,730,921 25.5 2045 08/01/45100% 1,104,112 (37,538) (117,434) 949,140 132.757% 1,260,050 630,025 (2,268) (62,776) 564,981 10,921,039 26 2045 02/01/46 Total22,593,081 (81,335) (2,251,175) 20,260,571 Present Value From 08/01/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00%12,178,330 (43,842) (1,213,449) 10,921,039 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Wayzata Blvd TIF District\TIF Runs\2016\TIF Plan Run 2-16-16.xlsCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 45 Appendix E-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 46 Appendix F-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 47 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 48 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 49 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 50 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 51 Appendix G-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The District consists of two parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing, hotel, and/or office purposes. In meeting the statutory criteria to qualify the District as a redevelopment district the City relies on the following facts and findings: • Pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d), more than 70 percent of the area in the District is deemed to be occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. • An inspection of the buildings located within the District, as summarized in a City Building Inspections letter dated January 23, 2012, resulted in a finding that more than 50 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act (see Appendix F of the TIF Plan). • On June 18, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-09 (the “EDA Resolution”), the EDA found that the parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings (see Appendix E of the TIF Plan), and on September 24, 2012, the EDA entered into a development agreement with 9920 Hotels, LLC, providing for the demolition of the buildings. Demolition was completed on July 9, 2014. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that each of the projects proposed for the District meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Historically, due to the high cost of redevelopment within the City for housing, hotel, and office purposes and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, these projects would be feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost of any of the projects proposed within the District. As stated above, high redevelopment costs in this area have made most redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Any projects that could potentially move forward without public assistance would necessarily be much smaller in scope, and would not fully put the property in the District to its highest and best use. Thus, the City finds that no other redevelopment of similar scope can reasonably anticipated on this site without assistance substantially similar to that provided for comparable projects in the past. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 52 Appendix G-2 a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $34,989,000. c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $12,178,330. d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $22,810,670 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. Each of the projects proposed to be constructed within the District would result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. But-For Analysis Current Market Value 2,331,000 New Market Value - Estimate 37,320,000 Difference 34,989,000 Present Value of Tax Increment 12,178,330 Difference 22,810,670 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 22,810,670 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District Page 53 City Council Meeting ofMarch 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 54 City Council Meeting ofMarch 21, 2016 (Item No. 6a) Title: Public Hearing - Establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 55 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 RECOMMENDED ACTION:  Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project No. 4016-1100, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.  Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions on Flag Avenue between 18th Street and Cedar Lake Road. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue implementation of the City’s Pavement Management Program? SUMMARY: Each year the City rehabilitates several miles of City streets. Flag Avenue and Quentin Avenue are the Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets which are proposed for rehabilitation in 2016. The project generally consists of a 2 inch mill and overlay of each street. Repairs or upgrades of curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main will be completed on Flag Avenue. Access to properties will be maintained throughout construction. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program for 2016. The project cost estimate for MSA is $825,664. Funding will be provided by a combination of MSA Funds and Utility Funds. Additional information regarding the funding can be found in the discussion of the report. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion No Parking Map Resolution for Improvement Project Resolution for No Parking Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Flag Avenue and Quentin Avenue are MSA roads which are funded by a gas tax through the State. In order to qualify for funding, the roads must be constructed to state aid standards. What follows is a description of the scope of this project. Parking: MSA standards require a 32 foot minimum road width to allow parking on one side of the street. Due to this requirement, no parking should be implemented on both sides of Flag Avenue between 18th Street and the northerly entrance to Minneapolis Golf Course since it is only 30 feet wide in this area. Flag Avenue is 32 feet wide between Cedar Lake Road and the northern entrance to the Minneapolis Golf Course, requiring parking to only be restricted on one side of the street. In order to maximize the amount of parking staff is recommending allowing parking on the side of the street with the least amount of driveways. A letter describing the parking limitations was sent to all adjacent property owners prior to the open house so that they were aware and could provide us feedback regarding parking. After discussions with residents at the open house staff is proposed the parking restrictions shown on the attached map. This map was sent to all adjacent residents and the Minneapolis Golf Course. The only response which was received by staff was a concern about the limited parking. This concern was from the Minneapolis Golf Course who would prefer parking on both sides to accommodate summer events. There is no change proposed to parking on Quentin Avenue. Pavement Rehabilitation: The pavement preservation technique chosen by staff for the 2016 MSA Project on Flag Avenue and Quentin Avenue is a two inch mill and overlay. A team of staff members from Streets, Utilities, and Engineering worked together to select streets and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques for inclusion in this year’s MSA Project. In addition to the overlay, Flag Avenue will also have the curb ramps upgraded to meet the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Sidewalk, curb and gutter will also be replaced as needed on Flag Avenue. Utility Repair: Flag Avenue will also undergo utility repairs and upgrades. The utility department has assessed the existing utilities along the corridor and made recommendations based on their findings. The water main on the north end of Flag Avenue between 18th Street and Franklin Avenue consists of a 12 inch main and a 6 inch main with services connected to the houses. The 6 inch main has deteriorated and has had several water main breaks. Since the capacity of the 6 inch water main is not needed, the 6 inch main will be abandoned in place and the house services will be connected to the 12 inch main. There are also water main valves, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer repairs needed on Flag Avenue which will be completed with this project. There is no recommended public utility repairs on Quentin Avenue. Private Utility Construction Utility companies have been contacted to inform them of the city’s proposed construction work and schedule. For those companies that have buried utilities, staff has asked them to consider replacing aging systems prior to our paving of the streets. CenterPoint Energy has indicated that they have significant upgrades to their gas main lines and service lines planned for Flag Avenue in the project area this spring. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 Public Process: An open house was held in January 2016 as an opportunity for residents to learn more about the proposed 2016 MSA Project and to gain insight on the proposed plans. There were ten property owners in attendance at this meeting. The two areas of discussion were the limitation on parking and the duration of construction. The residents were concerned on the length of construction due to the project which happened north of them in 2015. Due to the scope of the project, a mill and overlay, the construction length for Flag Avenue will be significantly shorter. Financial Consideration: This project was included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2016. Below is a summary of the costs and funding sources. Estimated Costs Construction Cost $688,054 Contingencies (10%) $68,805 Engineering & Administration (10%) $68,805 Total $825,664 Funding Sources Municipal State Aid $629,618 Water Utility Fund $168,410 Sanitary Utility Fund $27,636 Total $825,664 Project Timeline: Should the City Council approve this Project, the following schedule is proposed:  Advertise for bids March 24, 2015  Bid Opening April 14, 2016  Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract May 2, 2016  Begin Construction Late May, 2016 The project construction is anticipated to be completed in approximately two months. During this work, residents will nearly always have access to their driveways. However, driveways will not be accessible for 7 days where concrete aprons are replaced. Staff is working with the Minneapolis Golf Course to coordinate construction this summer due to the number of events taking place. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 RESOLUTION NO. 16-___ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4016-1100, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Engineer related to the Municipal State Aid Project- Flag Avenue and Quentin Avenue- Project No. 4016-1100; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 4016-1100 is hereby accepted. 2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3. The proposed project is hereby established and ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the direction of the Project Engineer, or designee, are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official City newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The Project Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Project Report: MSA Project - Flag Avenue/ Quentin Avenue Project No. 4016-1100 RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF “NO PARKING” RESTRICTIONS ON FLAG AVENUE BETWEEN 18th STREET AND CEDAR LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is rehabilitating Flag Avenue between 18th Street and Cedar Lake Road, and; WHEREAS, Municipal State Aid standards restrict parking on this road due to insufficient width, and; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install the following controls. 1. No parking on both sides of Flag Avenue between 18th Street and the northern entrance to the Minneapolis Golf Course. 2. No parking on the west side of Flag Avenue between the northern entrance to the Minneapolis Golf Course and 22nd Street. 3. No parking on the east side of Flag Avenue between 22nd Street and Cedar Lake Road. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance approving the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for AC Hotel by Marriott, Central Park West Phase III, subject to conditions and to set the second reading for April 4, 2016. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council support the proposed PUD for AC Hotel by Marriott? SUMMARY: ACSLP is requesting a Preliminary and Final PUD to allow construction of a six- story, 126-room AC Hotel by Marriott. The building is the third phase of the Central Park West PUD and contains approximately 3,000 square feet of restaurant/lounge area, 1,000 square feet of meeting space, a spa, and 189 parking spaces. The PUD is a rezoning of the property and zoning text amendments. Public input regarding this project has been received via a joint neighborhood meeting for Golden Valley and St. Louis Park residents held January 27, 2016. In February, the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley Planning Commissions each reviewed and recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD. There was no public comment from St. Louis Park residents at either of those meetings. NEXT STEPS: Golden Valley City Council will review the applications on March 29, 2016. The second reading is scheduled for April 4, 2016. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:  Discussion  Ordinance  Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes  Color Site Plan  Architectural Renderings & Plans  Site Civil Plans (selected sheets)  Phasing Plan  Parking Plan Prepared by: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor & Deputy Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Action Agenda Item: 8b City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development DISCUSSION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The requested Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development proposes to construct a six-story, 126-room AC Hotel by Marriott. BACKGROUND: The proposed redevelopment site lies southwest of Highway 100 and Interstate 394. The site is designated as Phase III of the overall Central Park West PUD and is split by the border of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. The hotel building is on the St. Louis Park side, and the parking lot is on the Golden Valley side of the border. As part of the larger Central Park West PUD, this site has a variety of agreements already in place to control access, parking, and civic space. The site will have a total of one-hundred-eighty-nine (189) parking spaces. The parking includes twenty-seven (27) underground spaces, fifty-two (52) surface spaces, and one-hundred-ten (110) spaces located off-site. The spaces located off-site are protected by a permanent easement agreement between the hotel site and the future office property. Environmental Review: As part of the larger Central Park West project, Kimley Horn and Associates produced an Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR). The analysis covered a wide variety of environmental impacts as required by state statutes, including traffic generation and transportation improvements, provision of utilities to the site, and impact to any natural systems. The report accounted for an approximate total of 150 rooms, while AC Marriott is proposing 126 rooms. This proposed use is within the scenario studied in the AUAR findings. Travel Demand Management: During the review of the overall Central Park West PUD, the developer submitted a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Plan that was reviewed by a joint committee. The hotel use is within the scenario studied and no changes to the TDM Plan are required. Sustainable Elements: Within the original approval of the Central Park West PUD, the developer provided a list of strategies that will be incorporated into the development. The AC Marriott Hotel must follow the Green Building Policy according to the PUD Ordinance and the Development Agreement. SITE INFORMATION: Site Area: 1.61 acres Zoning: O – Office Comprehensive Plan: Office Current Use: Parking Lot for Office and Commercial Space Proposed Use: Hotel Proposed Zoning: PUD – Planned Unit Development City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Site Location Map: Surrounding Land Uses: North: Wayzata Boulevard, I-394 East: Wayzata Boulevard, Highway 100 South: Six-story apartment building (under construction), vacant land (future office) West: Vacant land (future six-story apartment building), Utica Avenue South AC Marriott Site Location St. Louis Park Golden Valley City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development ZONING ANALYSIS: The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning Compliance Table: Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Hotel Hotel Yes Lot Area N/A 1.61 acres Yes Height None with PUD 84 feet Yes Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials E: 69.2% Class I, 30.8% Class II W: 72.9% Class I, 27.1% Class II S: 88.6% Class I, 11.4 % Class II N: 77.1% Class I, 22.9% Class II Yes Floor Area Ratio None with PUD 1.07 Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.18 Yes Off-Street Parking 1.5 spaces/1 hotel room 1.5 spaces/1 hotel room Total: 189 spaces Yes Bicycle Parking 10% of parking total 16 parking spaces Yes Open Area/DORA None with PUD 1,416 sq. ft. of rooftop area 153,393 sq. ft. total with off-site civic space Yes Landscaping See Landscaping section Yes Setbacks None with PUD Front (North and East along Wayzata): 77’ Rear (South): 41.29’ Side (East): 22.56’ Yes Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Rooftop equipment screened by parapet so as not visible from off-site. Yes Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Provided along all streets and building frontages Yes Refuse handling Full screening required Full screening provided by trash enclosure. Yes Transit service None required Served by routes 9,649,675 Yes Stormwater Management Required Provided underground and includes other best management practices Yes Uses: The site will be used as an AC Marriott Hotel and includes an accessory use as a lounge/bar for hotel guests. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guidance for this site is O-Office and permits the use of a hotel. The affected property is currently zoned O-Office and is included in the existing Central Park West Planned Unit Development. The rezoning of this property to its own PUD will allow for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual site and the proposed development. A draft of the ordinance outlining these conditions is attached to this report. Architectural Design: The plans submitted are consistent with the overall Central Park West PUD and the context of St. Louis Park’s West End. AC Hotels by Marriott is a new brand to the United States that is described by the applicant as an upper scale hotel with amenities including a rooftop deck and spa, lounge, and small meeting rooms to accommodate business travelers. Each City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development location is described as having its own unique interior and exterior design to suit the surrounding area. The building exteriors for the AC Marriott exceed the City’s minimum requirement of Class I materials, with over 60% used on each façade. The materials used are primarily stucco and glass, and provides a notable frontage along Wayzata Boulevard. The exterior of the building also includes manufactured stone and fiber cement material that is consistent with the neighboring residential buildings. Height: In the current Office zoning district, a hotel next to a residential property is only allowed to be 45 feet in height. A variance was granted to allow 66 feet in the master plan. This PUD approval will modify the height limit to allow the proposed: building 71’, parapet 75’, and the highest point of the parapet at 83’2”. Staff supports this change in height as the parapet wall provides screening for rooftop equipment and suits the character of other six and seven story buildings in the area. Parking: Parking will total 189 stalls through a combination of underground, surface, and off- site parking. This total meets the City’s hotel parking requirement for 1.5 stalls/1 room. On-site, 73 stalls are provided in the underground ramp and a surface lot. Off-site, 110 stalls will be provided on the ground floor of the North side of a future parking ramp to be shared between the Hotel and the future office building. Prior to the construction of the office parking ramp, temporary parking will be provided in an existing surface parking lot near HealthPartners. An agreement has been approved and designates 110 stalls in the center of the parking lot to be used by the hotel until the ramp is completed. The applicant is also providing bike parking on the exterior of the hotel and within the hotel’s underground parking ramp. Access: Access to the AC Marriott Hotel is provided by two driveways connecting to Wayzata Boulevard. The first driveway will allow for easy access in loading/unloading and use of the proposed valet service. The second entrance will provide access to the parking lot, and one-way access to the Central Park West Phase II site. This one-way fire lane will also provide access for deliveries and service vehicles. Loading/Service Areas: The site plan shows an attached trash enclosure to the South of the building with a small service drive. The location of the enclosure within the building will fully screen the containers and is large enough to include trash, recycling, and future organics storage. Landscaping: The landscape plan indicates 63 new trees, 503 shrubs and over 1,000 perennials and grasses. The project exceeds the City’s landscaping and tree replacement requirements. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA): The proposed development plans illustrate DORA through the inclusion of a rooftop amenity space and access to Central Park West’s shared linear park space. The rooftop amenity space features a small seating area and access to the hotel’s spa service area. The plan exceeds the City’s minimum 12% DORA requirements. Signage: A sign plan was not submitted for review. Signs will require permits and must comply with the C-2 General Commercial District standards. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Utilities: All small utilities will be placed underground. Utility service structures, such as a generator and transformer, will be screened completely from off-site with materials consistent with main building facade. Per the development agreement, buildings will provide the necessary infrastructure to take advantage of future fiber-optic service lines in the vicinity of the development. PUD ANALYSIS: Description The developer requests a preliminary and final Planned Unit Development. Uses The proposed uses on site are a 126 room hotel and a restaurant/lounge area which is allowed through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan and the current Zoning Map designate the site for Office. The proposed PUD would create a new zoning district and zoning regulations for uses and dimensional standards that are unique to this site and the proposed site and building plans. Staff finds that this site is suitable for the proposed hotel and meets many of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The site provides ample recreation space for hotel guests and employees through shared civic space to the South of the site. The use of a hotel provides a service complementary to the planned improvements for the Central Park West Planned Unit Development and the existing commercial land use in the area. Building and Site Design Analysis: The PUD ordinance requires the City to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. Staff finds the plan meets this requirement. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. Staff finds this criteria will be met. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. This is a condition of approval. The architect is working with Xcel Energy, Centerpoint Energy, and the City of St. Louis Park to comply. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The plan does not currently include these features, but may still be explored. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development STAFF RECOMMENDATONS: Staff recommends approval of the AC Marriott Hotel preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the following conditions, which will be incorporated into the development agreement. 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2. The on-site underground storm water management system shall be privately-owned and privately maintained. 3. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. c. All necessary permits must be obtained. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the City's Assent Form and the Official Exhibits. b. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and City that addresses, at a minimum: i. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. ii. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks and boulevard improvements and the execution of any necessary agreements related to the maintenance of such improvements. iii. Easements related to electronic communication and fiber infrastructure. iv. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times of the costs of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. v. The developer shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. vi. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning Development Contract. c. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. d. Building material samples and colors must be submitted to the City for review and approval. 6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the Director of Engineering (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall be completed: a. Public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 8. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. Rooftop equipment may be located as indicated in the Official Exhibits so as not to be visible from off-site. 9. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. NEXT STEPS: The Golden Valley City Council will consider the Final Plat and Final PUD at its meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 2016. A second reading is scheduled for St. Louis Park City Council on April 4, 2016. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 9 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development D R A F T ORDINANCE NO. ____-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 4 AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5075 WAYZATA BOULEVARD THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 16-01-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office. Sec. 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from O-Office to PUD 4: Lot 3, Block 1, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way. Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 4. (a) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C100 – Site Conditions After Phases 1 & 2 With Demolition Plan 2. C200 – Proposed Site Plan 3. C300 – Storm Drainage and Grading Plan 4. C400 – Utility Plan 5. C500 – Erosion Control Plan 6. C600 – Storm Water and Erosion Control Details 7. E002 – Electrical Site Plan 8. A101 – Parking Garage Level, First Floor Plan 9. A201 – Exterior Elevations 10. A202 – Exterior Elevations 12. A901 – 3D Views 13. L000 – Tree Inventory 14. L001 – Tree Mitigation Plan 15. L100 – Landscape Plan 16. L101 – Landscape Details and Notes City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 10 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development 17. PH-3 – Phasing Plan 19. Final Plat 20. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit 21. Temporary Off-Site Parking Plan The site shall also conform to the following requirements: (1) The property shall be developed with 126 rooms, approximately 1,700 square feet of meeting space, and approximately 3,620 square feet of hotel/restaurant/lounge area. (2) Parking will be provided both on-site and off-site. The on-site parking will contain twenty-seven (27) underground spaces, fifty-two (52) surface spaces. Off-site parking will include one-hundred-ten (110) parking spaces in an above ground ramp located on Outlot A. Parking will total one- hundred-eighty-nine (189) parking spaces. (3) The maximum building height shall not exceed 84 feet and six stories. (4) The development site shall provide 1,416 square feet of Designated Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) on a rooftop deck. (b) Permitted Uses (1) Hotel/motel. The conditions are as follows: Building heights shall be limited to six stories or 84 feet. (c) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Bar, if accessory to a hotel and in compliance with City liquor licensing requirements. (2) Parking lots (3) Parking ramps utilizing the same exterior facing materials as the principal buildings. (4) Public transit stops/shelters. (5) Food Service a. Service space is limited to space designated in Site Plan. (6) Outdoor seating, public address (PA) system prohibited. (7) No outdoor storage allowed. (d) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking and screening requirements. (2) All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 11 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development (3) Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with the following conditions: a. Pylon signs are not permitted; b. Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian/bicycle or automobile circulation and visibility; c. Pedestrian-scale signs visible from public sidewalks shall be no more than three feet in vertical dimension unless flush with the building wall; and d. Maximum allowable number, sizes and heights of signs shall be regulated by section 36-362, C-2 requirements, except as may be specifically modified by the final PUD. (4) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential facades: a. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. b. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. (5) Awnings. a. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. b. Backlit awnings are prohibited. Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 16-01-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing February 3, 2016 First Reading March 21, 2016 Second Reading April 4, 2016 Date of Publication April 14, 2016 Date Ordinance takes effect April 29, 2016 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2016 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 12 Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 3, 2016 – 6:05 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Carl Robertson STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Nicole Mardell, Gary Morrison 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of January 6, 2016 Commissioner Carper moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Tatalovich abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. AC Marriott, Central Park West Phase III – Preliminary and Final PUD Location: 5075 Wayzata Blvd. Applicant: RISLP, LLC Case No.: 16-01-PUD Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the request for the PUD is to allow construction of a six-story, 126 room hotel. She explained that as part of the larger Central Park West PUD, the site has a variety of agreements already in place to control access, parking and civic space. She reviewed the zoning analysis of the proposal. Commissioner Peilen asked the distance between the off-site parking and the hotel. Ms. Mardell responded that it is a distance of about ½ block. Commissioner Peilen asked if the hotel will have a shuttle service for guests if they have to park off-site. Ms. Mardell said staff has been working with the applicant to find ways to do a valet or shuttle service. She said the applicant has indicated the off-site area is going to mainly be reserved for employees so that all hotel guests can use the 79 spaces on site. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 13 Official Minutes Planning Commission February 3, 2016 Page 2 Commissioner Carper spoke about stormwater retention. He asked if there will be any rain gardens on site. Ms. Mardell responded that there are no rain gardens on site. There is an underground stormwater retention system on site. Commissioner Carper asked if accommodation will be made for electric car charging. He asked about LED lighting on site. Jesse Messner, architect, Cities Edge, said they feel they will have the guest parking needs met with the surface stalls on site. He said they will monitor that and if needed they will have valet service for off-site parking. He said the off-site parking would be specifically for employees and the spillover would go to the ramp. He said at this time they don’t have any accommodation for electric cars. Mr. Messner said a great majority of the interior and exterior building will have LED lighting. Commissioner Carper said he would recommend the development include charging stations for vehicles, or at least the conduit installed to accommodate it in the future. Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carper remarked that the hotel will meet the needs of the community and the area and it will fit in well. Commissioner Peilen said the hotel looks like an excellent development for the city. Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD for the AC Marriott Hotel, Central Park West Phase III. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 4. Other Business None. 5. Communications Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, reminded commissioners about the February 22nd Boards and Commissions annual meeting with the City Council. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 14 Official Minutes Planning Commission February 3, 2016 Page 3 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. A study session regarding proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance began at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Sr. Office Assistant City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 15 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 16 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 17 DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:17:20 PM30906JEZJRM A901 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT 3D VIEWS 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN SCALE: NE 3D View1 SCALE: SW 3D View2 Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 18 DNDN UP UP 18x4818x4824x6024x4824x4818x4824x4824x4818x36 18x36 18x3618x3618x7218x4824x6024x4824x4824x4218x60 24x48 36DR 36"DR36"DRDYH REF. UP A202 A201 A2012 A202 1 1 2 1 A304 MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING ROOMROOMROOMROOM 126 2 A302 2 A302 LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 101 RECEPTIONRECEPTIONRECEPTIONRECEPTION 102 MARKETMARKETMARKETMARKET 103 MARKETMARKETMARKETMARKET STORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGE 104 LIBRARYLIBRARYLIBRARYLIBRARY 105 MEDIAMEDIAMEDIAMEDIA SALONSALONSALONSALON 106 MEDIAMEDIAMEDIAMEDIA SALONSALONSALONSALON 107 ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.ELEV. LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 108 WOMEN'SWOMEN'SWOMEN'SWOMEN'S R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R. 109 MEN'S R.R.MEN'S R.R.MEN'S R.R.MEN'S R.R. 110 STAIR EXITSTAIR EXITSTAIR EXITSTAIR EXIT112ENGINEERINGENGINEERINGENGINEERINGENGINEERING 113 EMPLOYEEEMPLOYEEEMPLOYEEEMPLOYEE BREAK AREABREAK AREABREAK AREABREAK AREA 114 EMPLOYEEEMPLOYEEEMPLOYEEEMPLOYEE R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R. 115 CARTCARTCARTCART STORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGE 116 HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING 117 ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 118ADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATION 121 VIDEO/TELE.VIDEO/TELE.VIDEO/TELE.VIDEO/TELE. EQUIPMENTEQUIPMENTEQUIPMENTEQUIPMENT 125 MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING RM STOR.RM STOR.RM STOR.RM STOR. 127 KITCHENKITCHENKITCHENKITCHEN 128 AC LOUNGEAC LOUNGEAC LOUNGEAC LOUNGE 129 BARBARBARBAR 130 BREAKFASTBREAKFASTBREAKFASTBREAKFAST AREAAREAAREAAREA 131 VESTIBULEVESTIBULEVESTIBULEVESTIBULE 132 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 A401 1 A402 1 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 2 A301 1 A302 1 A302 1 A301 1 A301 24' - 6"24' - 6" 196' - 0"24' - 6" 9' - 0 1/2" 2 A304 5 A30318' - 7"23' - 0"19' - 7"MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 113A SALESSALESSALESSALES 119 G.M.G.M.G.M.G.M. 120LUG. STOR.LUG. STOR.LUG. STOR.LUG. STOR. 123 WORK AREAWORK AREAWORK AREAWORK AREA 124 3 A301 3 A301 - --- AREA WELL FOR MECH. AREA WELL FOR MECH. 1.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 1 A303 132A 128A 132B 133A 133B127126B126A125101B101D 101A 101C101E124 104 108119120 118117A113 112B110109 112A123106 107 113AW4W4 W4 W4 W4W4A W1 W2 W3 W1 W1 16' - 0"11' - 0" A305 1 A405 35 33 (8) BICYCLE PARKING AREAS, W/ TWO BICYCLE PARKING STALLS IN PARKING GARAGE AREA - --- A404 12 11 14 13 TRASH/TRASH/TRASH/TRASH/ RECYCLINGRECYCLINGRECYCLINGRECYCLING 138 5' - 0" A404 19 ELEVATOR SCHEDULE LOCATION MFG CAPACITY SPEED USAGE ELEV. #1 F/R OPENING SCHINDLER 3300 3500 #150 FPM PASSENGER/ SERVICE ELEV. #2 FRONT OPENING SCHINDLER 3300 2500 #150 FPM PASSENGER A202 2 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 1 A302 1 A302 1 A301 1 A301 2 A304 198' - 8"63' - 10"21' - 4 3/4"22' - 0 1/2"20' - 4 3/4"5 A303 3 A3011.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 1 A303 A405 6 A310 1 034003002 033001 A307 1 A307 8 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 MECHANICALMECHANICALMECHANICALMECHANICAL 003 PARKINGPARKINGPARKINGPARKING 001 ELEVATORELEVATORELEVATORELEVATOR LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 002 TWO BICYCLE PARKING STALLS IN PARKING GARAGE AREA - --- SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR1DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:08:38 PM30906JEZJRM A101 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT PARKING GARAGE LEVEL, FIRST FLOOR PLAN 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" PARKING LEVEL2 Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 19 UP UP DN DN DNUP DNUP A202 A201 A2012 A202 1 1 2 ELEV. 1 KINGKINGKINGKING G201 KINGKINGKINGKING G203 KINGKINGKINGKING G205 KINGKINGKINGKING G207 KINGKINGKINGKING G209 KINGKINGKINGKING G211 KINGKINGKINGKING G213 KINGKINGKINGKING G215 KINGKINGKINGKING G217 KINGKINGKINGKING G219 KING ADAKING ADAKING ADAKING ADA G221 KINGKINGKINGKING G223 KINGKINGKINGKING G225 QQQQQQQQ G228 QQQQQQQQ G226 QQQQQQQQ G224 QQQQQQQQ G222 QQQQQQQQ G220 QQQQQQQQ G218 QQQQQQQQ G216 QQQQQQQQ G214 QQQQQQQQ G212 QQQQQQQQ G210 QQQQQQQQ G208 QQQQQQQQ G206 QQQQQQQQ G204 QQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADA G202 1 A308 2 A308 ELEV. 2 2 A302 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 201 ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.ELEV. LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 202 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 203 HYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATION STATIONSTATIONSTATIONSTATION 204 ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 205 HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING 206 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 A501 1 A503 1 A502 1 A504 1 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 201 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 1 A302 1 A302 1 A301 1 A301 2 A304 13' - 9 9/16" 5 A303 3 A3011.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 24' - 6" 24' - 6" 24' - 6"24' - 6"24' - 6"24' - 6" 1 A303 11' - 7 1/8" A310 3 A307 3 A307 1023320520623411' - 7 1/8"12' - 5 11/16" W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 203 - --- A202 A201 A2012 A202 1 1 2 KINGKINGKINGKING G301 KINGKINGKINGKING G303 KINGKINGKINGKING G305 KINGKINGKINGKING G307 KINGKINGKINGKING G309 KINGKINGKINGKING G311 KINGKINGKINGKING G313 KINGKINGKINGKING G315 KINGKINGKINGKING G317 KINGKINGKINGKING G319 KINGKINGKINGKING G323 KINGKINGKINGKING G325 QQQQQQQQ G328 QQQQQQQQ G326 QQQQQQQQ G324 QQQQQQQQ G322 QQQQQQQQ G320 QQQQQQQQ G318 QQQQQQQQ G316 QQQQQQQQ G314 QQQQQQQQ G312 QQQQQQQQ G310 QQQQQQQQ G308 QQQQQQQQ G306 QQQQQQQQ G304 KING ADAKING ADAKING ADAKING ADA G321 QQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADA G302 1 A308 2 A308 1 A304 2 A302 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 301 ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.ELEV. LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 302 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 303 HYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATION STATIONSTATIONSTATIONSTATION 304 ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 305 HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING 306 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 301 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 1 A302 1 A302 1 A301 2 A304 5 A303 3 A3011.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 1 A303 A310 3 A307 4 A307 11333305306334 W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 303 A702 10DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:08:53 PM30906JEZJRM A102 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT SECOND & THIRD FLOOR PLANS 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SECOND FLOOR1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" THIRD FLOOR2 Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 20 DNUP DNUP DN DNUPUP A202 A201 A2012 A202 1 1 2 KINGKINGKINGKING G401 KINGKINGKINGKING G403 KINGKINGKINGKING G405 KINGKINGKINGKING G407 KINGKINGKINGKING G409 KINGKINGKINGKING G411 KINGKINGKINGKING G413 KINGKINGKINGKING G415 KINGKINGKINGKING G417 KINGKINGKINGKING G419 KINGKINGKINGKING G423 KINGKINGKINGKING G425 QQQQQQQQ G428 QQQQQQQQ G426 QQQQQQQQ G424 QQQQQQQQ G422 QQQQQQQQ G420 QQQQQQQQ G418 QQQQQQQQ G416 QQQQQQQQ G414 QQQQQQQQ G412 QQQQQQQQ G410 QQQQQQQQ G408 QQQQQQQQ G406 QQQQQQQQ G404 KING ADAKING ADAKING ADAKING ADA G421 QQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADA G402 1 A308 2 A308 1 A304 2 A302 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 401 ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.ELEV. LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 402 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 403 HYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATION STATIONSTATIONSTATIONSTATION 404 ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 405 HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING 406 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 401 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 1 A302 1 A301 1 A301 2 A304 5 A303 3 A3011.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 1 A303 A310 3 A307 5 A307 12433405406434 W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 403 A202 A201 A2012 A202 1 1 2 KINGKINGKINGKING G501 KINGKINGKINGKING G503 KINGKINGKINGKING G505 KINGKINGKINGKING G507 KINGKINGKINGKING G509 KINGKINGKINGKING G511 KINGKINGKINGKING G513 KINGKINGKINGKING G515 KINGKINGKINGKING G517 KINGKINGKINGKING G519 KINGKINGKINGKING G523 KINGKINGKINGKING G525 QQQQQQQQ G528 QQQQQQQQ G526 QQQQQQQQ G524 QQQQQQQQ G522 QQQQQQQQ G520 QQQQQQQQ G518 QQQQQQQQ G516 QQQQQQQQ G514 QQQQQQQQ G512 QQQQQQQQ G510 QQQQQQQQ G508 QQQQQQQQ G506 QQQQQQQQ G504 KING ADAKING ADAKING ADAKING ADA 521 QQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADA G502 1 A308 2 A308 1 A304 2 A302 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 501 ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.ELEV. LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 502 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 503 HYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATION STATIONSTATIONSTATIONSTATION 504 ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 505 HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING 506 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 501 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 1 A302 1 A301 1 A301 2 A304 5 A303 3 A3011.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 1 A303 A310 3 A307 6 A307 13533505506534 W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 503DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:09:10 PM30906JEZJRM A103 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT FOURTH & FIFTH FLOOR PLANS 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FOURTH FLOOR1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FIFTH FLOOR2 Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 21 DN DN A202 A201 A2012 A202 1 1 2 SPA KINGKINGKINGKING G601 KINGKINGKINGKING G603 KINGKINGKINGKING G605 QQQQQQQQ G604 QQQQQQQQ G606 KINGKINGKINGKING G607 QQQQQQQQ G608 KINGKINGKINGKING G609 KINGKINGKINGKING G611 KINGKINGKINGKING G613 KINGKINGKINGKING G615 KINGKINGKINGKING G617 KINGKINGKINGKING G619 KING ADAKING ADAKING ADAKING ADA G621 KINGKINGKINGKING G623 KINGKINGKINGKING G625 QQQQQQQQ G624 QQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADAQQ ADA G602 1 A308 2 A308 1 A304 2 A302 FITNESSFITNESSFITNESSFITNESS 607OUTDOOROUTDOOROUTDOOROUTDOOR LOUNGELOUNGELOUNGELOUNGE 612 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 601 ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.ELEV. LOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBY 602 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 603 HYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATIONHYDRATION STATIONSTATIONSTATIONSTATION 604 ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ELECT./ MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH. 605 HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING 606 VEST.VEST.VEST.VEST. 611 VEST.VEST.VEST.VEST. 613 SPA EQUIP.SPA EQUIP.SPA EQUIP.SPA EQUIP. /MECH./MECH./MECH./MECH. 614 ELEV. #1ELEV. #2 A403 1 NORTHNORTHNORTHNORTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 134 SOUTHSOUTHSOUTHSOUTH STAIRSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 133 CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR 601 4 A301 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D 2 A301 2 A301 1 A302 1 A301 1 A301 2 A304 5 A303 3 A3011.4 8.1 8.5 7.7 A.6 B.1 4 A303 1 A303 A310 3 A307 7 A307 14633614613B613A611A611B 607 634606605W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1 W1W1W1W1W1 603 MEN'SMEN'SMEN'SMEN'S 609 WOMEN'SWOMEN'SWOMEN'SWOMEN'S 608 W5 W6 W6 A306 1 96" x 30" ROOF HATCH 2'-6" WIDE OPENING ROOF HATCH SAFETY RAIL BY HATCH SUPPLIER BUILD UP TO ABOVE INSUL HEIGHT 8' - 0" NOTE: 1. VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS OF ROOF TOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT & MECHANICAL CURBS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS. 2. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ALL PLUMBING PENETRATIONS. 3. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS AND EXACT LOCATIONS. 4. VENTS AT PARAPETS TO BE 20' O.C., MIN OF 2 VENTS PER DRAFTSTOP SPACE.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:09:24 PM30906JEZJRM A104 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT SIXTH FLOOR & ROOF PLANS 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SIXTH FLOOR1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF PLAN2 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" ROOFHATCH DETAIL3 Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 22 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 115' - 0" THIRD FLOOR 126' - 4" BTM. OF PLANK 172' - 4" FOURTH FLOOR 137' - 8" T.O. HIGH PARAPET 183' - 2" FIFTH FLOOR 149' - 0" SIXTH FLOOR 161' - 0" 1 A308 2 A308 15' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"12' - 0"11' - 4"10' - 10"83' - 2"123456789 2 A301 1 A3015 A303 3 A301 LED STRIP LIGHTING UNDER PERIMETER OF HIGH PARAPET, NORTH, EAST AND WEST SIDES (TYPE LEDRGB #MX4) 1.48.18.5 7.7 T.O. LOW PARAPET 176' - 4" LED STRIP LIGHTING UNDER FULL PERIMETER OF LOW PARAPET (TYPE LEDRGB #MX4) 4 A303 1 A303 3 A704 2 A702 STUCCO #2 - COLOR: LATTICE NICHIHA FIBERCEMENT PANEL #1 - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY STUCCO #1 - COLOR: DORIAN GRAY MANUFACTURED STONE - CORONADO STONE IN COLOSEUM TRAVERTINE (ROMAN) 16"x24" CURTAIN WALL SPANDREL GLASS NICHIHA FIBERCEMENT PANEL #2 - COLOR: CAVIAR PERFORATED METAL PANEL W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1W1W1W1 W1W1W1W1W1W1 W4 W4 W4W4 W1 W1 W1W1 W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 118117C NICHIHA FIBERCEMENT PANEL #1 @ PARAPET - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 115' - 0" THIRD FLOOR 126' - 4" BTM. OF PLANK 172' - 4" FOURTH FLOOR 137' - 8" T.O. HIGH PARAPET 183' - 2" FIFTH FLOOR 149' - 0" SIXTH FLOOR 161' - 0" 2 A302 10' - 10"11' - 4"12' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"15' - 0"83' - 2"4 A301 ABCD 1 A302 11' - 6"11' - 6"2 A304 LED STRIP LIGHTING UNDER PERIMETER OF HIGH PARAPET, NORTH, EAST AND WEST SIDES (TYPE LEDRGB #MX4) A.6B.1 T.O. LOW PARAPET 176' - 4" NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS #2 - COLOR: CAVIAR PERFORATED METAL PANEL NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS #1 - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY SPANDREL GLASS CURTAIN WALL ILLUMINATED SIGN NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS #1 @ PARAPET - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY STUCCO COLOR #1 - COLOR TO MATCH (SW7017 - DORIAN GRAY) STUCCO COLOR #2 - COLOR TO MATCH (SW7654 - LATTICE) STUCCO COLOR #3 - COLOR TO MATCH (SW6990 - CAVIAR) NICHIHA PANELS #1 - ILLUMINATION SERIES COLOR TO MATCH (SW7019 - GAUNTLET GRAY) NICHIHA PANELS #2 - ILLUMINATION SERIES COLOR TO MATCH (SW6990 - CAVIAR) MANUFACTURED STONE - CORONADO STONE - COLOSEUM TRAVERTINE (ROMAN) 16"x24" PERFORATED METAL PANEL SPANDREL GLASS EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND STUCCO - DO NOT EXCEED 144 SF BETWEEN CONTROL JOINTS. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CONTROL JOINTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED 18 FEET INEITHER DIRECTION WITH A LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO OF 2.5 TO 1. B C (EXPANSION JT. - E.J.)(REVEAL) 1/2" SHEATHING JOINT3/4"1 1/2"1 1/2"1"3/4"3/4" 1" MIN.1/2"1"A (CONTROL JT. - C.J.) METAL LATHE CONTROL JOINT 3/4"1 1/2" 1" MIN.1/2"1"EIFS JOINTS/REVEAL: SEE ELEVATIONS FOR JOINT/REVEAL LOCATIONS 3/8"BACKER ROD & SEALANT (TYP.) EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES 1.ALL EXTERIOR VENTS & LOUVERS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL COLOR. SEE MECHANICAL FOR SIZE AND LOCATIONS 2.FOAM PLASTIC INSULATION GREATER THAN 4" IN THICKNESS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM FLAME SPREAD INDEX OF 75 AND A SMOKE DEVELOPED INDEX OF 450 WHERE TESTED AT A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 4" 3.PROVIDE BLOCKING AND ELECTRICAL CIRCUITING TOO ALL SIGN LOCATIONS; COORDINATE WITH SIGN CONTRACTOR. 4.EIFS NOT TO EXCEED 144 SQ. FT. W/O CONTROL JOINT. SEE DETAILS FOR CONTROL AND EXPANSION JOINTS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH2DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:12:05 PM30906JEZJRM A201 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" EIFS JOINTS SCALE: 12" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES NORTH ELEVATION MATERIAL SQUARE FOOTAGES CLASS 1 MATERIALS: (77.1%) CURTAIN WALL 4,107 SF STUCCO #1 0 SF STUCCO #2 0 SF WINDOWS 0 SF CLASS 1I MATERIALS: (22.9%) STONE 0 SF NICHIHA 1,218 SF WEST ELEVATION MATERIAL SQUARE FOOTAGES CLASS 1 MATERIALS: (72.9%) CURTAIN WALL 1,672 SF STUCCO #1 5,368 SF STUCCO #2 1,254 SF WINDOWS 2,652 SF CLASS II MATERIALS: (27.1%) STONE 2,084 SF NICHIHA 1,984 SF Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 23 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 115' - 0" THIRD FLOOR 126' - 4" BTM. OF PLANK 172' - 4" FOURTH FLOOR 137' - 8" T.O. HIGH PARAPET 183' - 2" FIFTH FLOOR 149' - 0" SIXTH FLOOR 161' - 0"83' - 2"10' - 10"11' - 4"12' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"15' - 0"9' - 10"1' - 6"3' - 0"9' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"12' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"15' - 0"11' - 4"3' - 1 1/4"8' - 10 3/4"2' - 5 1/4"8' - 10 3/4"2' - 5 1/4"8' - 10 3/4"2' - 5 1/4"8' - 10 3/4"5' - 1 1/4"9' - 10 3/4"1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 A301 1 A301 11' - 6"11' - 6"19' - 3 161/256"1' - 4"5 A303 3 A301 LED DOWNLIGHT (TYPE XDE) @ UNDERSIDE OF SUNSHADES & PORTE COCHERE LED STRIP LIGHTING UNDER PERIMETER OF HIGH PARAPET, NORTH, EAST AND WEST SIDES (TYPE LEDRGB #MX4) BUILDING ACCENT UP/DOWN LIGHTING (TYPE XUD) 1.4 8.1 8.57.7 T.O. LOW PARAPET 176' - 4" LED STRIP LIGHTING UNDER FULL PERIMETER OF LOW PARAPET (TYPE LEDRGB #MX4) 4 A303 A202 3 1 A303 ILLUMINATED SIGN NICHIHA FIBERCEMENT PANELS #2 - COLOR: CAVIAR PERFORATED METAL PANEL SPANDREL GLASS CURTAIN WALL NICHIHA FIBERCEMENT PANELS #1 - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY MANUFACTURED STONE - CORONADO STONE - COLOSEUM TRAVERTINE (ROMAN) 16"x24" NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS #1 @ PARAPET - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS #1 - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY SPANDREL GLASS STUCCO #1 - COLOR: DORIAN GRAY CURTAIN WALL STUCCO #2 - COLOR: LATTICE GLASS RAILING W2 W4A W4 W3 101A126A 101C101B W1 613A 611A W1W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1W1W1W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 112A FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 115' - 0" THIRD FLOOR 126' - 4" BTM. OF PLANK 172' - 4" FOURTH FLOOR 137' - 8" T.O. HIGH PARAPET 183' - 2" FIFTH FLOOR 149' - 0" SIXTH FLOOR 161' - 0" PARKING LEVEL 90' - 0" 2 A302 83' - 2"10' - 0"10' - 10"11' - 4"12' - 0"11' - 4"11' - 4"11' - 4"15' - 0"4 A301 A B C D 1 A302 T.O. LOW PARAPET 176' - 4" LED STRIP LIGHTING UNDER FULL PERIMETER OF LOW PARAPET (TYPE LEDRGB #MX4) STUCCO #1 - COLOR: DORIAN GRAY STUCCO #1 - COLOR: DORIAN GRAY STUCCO #2 - COLOR: LATTICE NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS # 1 - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT PANELS #1 @ HIGH PARAPET BEYOND - COLOR: GAUNTLET GRAY W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 132A 133A 001 STUCCO COLOR #1 - COLOR TO MATCH (SW7017 - DORIAN GRAY) STUCCO COLOR #2 - COLOR TO MATCH (SW7654 - LATTICE) STUCCO COLOR #3 - COLOR TO MATCH (SW6990 - CAVIAR) NICHIHA PANELS #1 - ILLUMINATION SERIES COLOR TO MATCH (SW7019 - GAUNTLET GRAY) NICHIHA PANELS #2 - ILLUMINATION SERIES COLOR TO MATCH (SW6990 - CAVIAR) MANUFACTURED STONE - CORONADO STONE - COLOSEUM TRAVERTINE (ROMAN) 16"x24" PERFORATED METAL PANEL SPANDREL GLASS EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND STUCCO - DO NOT EXCEED 144 SF BETWEEN CONTROL JOINTS. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CONTROL JOINTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED 18 FEET INEITHER DIRECTION WITH A LENGTH TO WIDTH RATIO OF 2.5 TO 1. 2' - 0"2' - 8"MCNICHOLS 3/4" ROUND ON 1" PERF. ALUM. AC HOTELS SIGNAGE OVER PERF. ALUM. PANELDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:© Copyright 2016 - Cities Edge, LLC. - All rights reservedSHEET NUMBER This document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: ISSUE PHASE DATE ISSUED PROJECT OWNER: PROJECT LOCATION: Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\jzetah\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_jzetah.rvt2/26/2016 12:13:35 PM30906JEZJRM A202 AC HOTEL BY MARRIOTT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 03-22-2016 ACSLP, L.L.C. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GOLDEN VALLEY/ ST. LOUIS PARK, MN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH2 EAST ELEVATION MATERIAL SQUARE FOOTAGES CLASS 1 MATERIALS: 69.2%) CURTAIN WALL 8,646 SF STUCCO #1 669 SF STUCCO #2 0 SF WINDOWS 1,325 SF CLASS II MATERIALS: (30.8 %) STONE 2,093 SF NICHIHA 2,634 SF SOUTH ELEVATION MATERIAL SQUARE FOOTAGES CLASS I MATERIALS: (88.6%) CURTAIN WALL 0 SF STUCCO #1 3,487 SF STUCCO #2 595 SF WINDOWS 210 SF CLASS II MATERIALS: (11.4%) STONE 0 SF NICHIHA 526 SF SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" AC ENTRY SIGN DETAIL3 Revision Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 24 DNDNUPUPExExExExExExExExExExExExDACB1.48.18.5THE DARK, DASHED LINE INDICATESTHE PROPERTY BOUNDRYMAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM- 1st FLOORMAIN PBX ROOM- 1st FLOORPROPOSED HOTELFIXTURE AAFIXTURE CC430.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.20.30.40.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.30.40.50.60.50.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.60.90.80.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.40.60.81.01.31.10.80.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.21.51.71.41.00.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.71.01.31.61.92.21.81.30.90.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.81.31.71.51.42.41.91.30.90.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.61.21.40.40.21.61.51.10.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.81.31.70.80.41.81.61.20.90.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.81.31.61.71.92.31.91.41.00.70.50.30.20.20.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.60.81.11.51.82.11.71.20.90.70.50.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.50.60.60.70.70.60.60.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.50.81.11.31.61.41.00.80.60.50.40.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.50.50.60.60.60.50.50.40.40.50.50.60.70.80.80.80.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.40.60.70.91.11.10.90.70.60.50.40.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.40.40.50.50.60.70.70.70.70.60.60.50.50.50.50.60.80.90.90.90.90.80.70.60.50.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.60.80.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.20.20.30.30.30.30.40.30.40.50.50.60.70.80.80.90.80.80.70.60.60.50.60.70.91.01.11.01.00.90.80.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.30.40.60.70.70.80.80.70.50.40.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.01.00.90.80.70.60.60.70.81.01.21.31.21.11.00.90.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.50.60.70.91.00.90.70.60.50.40.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.50.60.70.81.01.11.21.21.11.11.00.80.70.70.81.01.21.41.51.41.31.11.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.50.60.71.11.31.21.00.80.60.40.40.30.30.30.40.40.40.50.60.70.80.91.11.21.31.31.31.21.10.90.80.80.91.11.31.61.61.51.41.21.00.80.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.70.91.31.71.61.31.10.80.50.40.30.30.40.40.50.50.50.60.70.91.01.21.31.41.51.41.31.11.00.90.91.01.21.31.61.51.51.41.31.10.90.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.40.71.11.42.02.21.71.20.80.60.40.40.40.40.40.50.50.50.60.70.91.01.21.31.51.61.51.31.21.00.90.91.11.31.41.51.31.21.21.21.10.90.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.91.21.82.12.41.91.30.80.60.50.50.40.40.50.50.50.60.60.80.91.01.21.31.51.51.41.31.11.00.90.91.01.41.51.61.21.21.21.21.00.90.60.40.30.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.61.11.51.60.71.01.51.51.10.90.70.50.50.50.50.50.50.60.70.80.91.01.21.31.31.41.31.21.10.90.90.91.01.31.41.51.31.31.31.21.10.90.60.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.61.11.61.50.30.42.01.91.51.00.80.60.50.50.50.50.60.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.21.21.21.11.00.90.80.80.91.11.31.61.51.51.41.31.10.90.60.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.71.51.42.32.11.51.00.80.60.50.50.50.60.60.60.70.80.91.01.01.11.11.11.11.00.90.80.70.70.81.01.21.51.61.51.41.21.00.80.60.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.30.61.21.51.61.71.91.91.41.00.70.60.50.50.50.60.60.60.70.80.80.91.01.01.01.00.90.90.80.70.60.60.70.91.11.31.41.31.31.10.90.80.60.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.50.91.11.11.21.21.41.31.00.70.60.50.50.50.60.70.70.70.80.90.91.01.01.00.90.90.80.70.60.50.50.60.81.01.21.21.11.11.00.90.70.50.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.60.70.80.80.91.00.90.70.60.50.50.60.70.70.80.80.90.91.01.01.00.90.90.80.70.60.50.50.50.60.70.81.01.01.00.90.90.80.70.50.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.50.60.50.70.70.70.60.60.60.70.70.90.91.01.01.01.01.01.01.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.50.50.70.80.90.90.90.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.40.40.40.50.60.70.70.70.70.70.80.91.01.11.11.11.21.21.11.00.90.80.70.60.50.50.50.60.70.80.80.80.80.80.70.60.50.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.40.60.80.90.80.80.80.91.01.11.21.31.21.31.31.21.11.00.80.70.60.50.50.50.60.60.70.70.70.70.70.60.60.50.40.30.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.61.01.21.11.11.11.11.11.21.41.51.41.41.31.21.10.90.80.70.60.50.50.50.50.60.60.60.60.60.60.60.50.40.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.61.11.51.61.51.41.31.31.41.61.61.61.51.41.31.10.90.80.70.60.50.50.50.50.50.60.60.60.60.60.50.50.40.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.50.81.11.72.12.01.61.51.51.71.91.81.71.61.51.31.10.90.70.70.60.50.50.50.50.50.60.60.60.60.60.50.50.40.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.91.31.82.42.41.91.81.91.92.01.81.71.61.51.31.10.90.70.70.60.50.50.50.50.50.60.60.60.60.50.50.50.40.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.91.31.81.31.42.02.32.42.22.01.61.51.51.41.31.10.90.70.70.60.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.61.01.51.70.40.42.12.92.72.32.11.51.41.41.41.31.10.90.80.70.60.50.50.50.50.50.50.60.60.50.50.50.40.40.30.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.61.01.41.61.11.22.22.82.72.32.01.61.51.51.51.41.20.90.80.70.60.50.50.50.50.60.60.60.60.60.60.50.50.40.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.70.91.31.71.71.92.22.42.32.22.01.81.71.51.41.21.00.80.70.60.60.60.60.60.70.70.80.80.70.70.60.50.50.40.30.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.61.11.41.31.41.51.72.02.22.11.91.81.61.41.21.00.90.80.70.60.60.70.70.80.90.90.90.90.80.70.60.50.40.40.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.50.70.90.90.91.21.31.51.91.91.81.71.61.51.31.10.90.80.70.70.70.80.90.91.01.11.11.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.50.60.91.01.21.61.81.81.71.61.61.41.21.00.90.80.80.80.91.01.11.21.21.21.21.10.90.80.70.60.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.40.70.81.01.41.71.91.91.81.71.61.31.10.90.90.90.91.01.11.21.31.41.41.31.21.00.90.70.60.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.40.50.70.91.21.72.12.22.12.01.71.41.21.01.00.91.01.11.21.31.41.61.61.41.31.10.90.80.70.50.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.21.52.12.62.62.31.81.51.31.11.01.01.01.11.21.31.51.61.61.41.31.11.00.80.70.60.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.91.21.62.02.73.02.51.81.71.51.31.11.01.01.11.21.31.41.51.51.41.21.10.90.80.70.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.01.52.12.12.02.12.22.01.81.41.21.11.01.11.11.31.31.41.41.31.21.00.90.70.60.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.61.01.52.01.50.51.32.72.51.91.51.21.01.01.01.11.21.21.21.21.21.10.90.80.70.60.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.51.91.50.81.52.62.52.01.51.21.01.01.01.01.11.11.11.11.10.90.80.70.60.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.21.41.91.92.02.02.11.91.61.31.11.01.01.01.11.11.11.01.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.30.50.61.01.51.61.51.51.31.41.41.21.21.11.11.11.11.11.11.00.90.80.70.60.50.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.40.71.01.01.01.11.00.91.11.11.21.21.21.21.31.21.11.00.90.80.70.60.50.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.60.60.70.80.70.81.01.31.51.51.51.61.41.21.01.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.40.50.60.60.70.91.31.72.02.02.01.71.41.31.21.10.90.80.70.50.40.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.40.50.60.70.81.11.82.42.72.52.11.81.71.51.31.10.90.70.50.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.40.50.60.91.21.62.32.72.52.22.42.21.91.61.31.00.70.60.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.50.71.11.62.11.21.22.63.32.92.31.91.51.10.80.70.60.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.61.11.62.00.90.72.43.53.52.92.51.81.31.00.80.70.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.61.01.51.91.62.02.53.03.43.43.02.21.51.31.10.80.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.11.21.92.22.22.52.73.02.72.01.91.71.30.90.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.50.91.41.61.72.02.41.60.81.72.52.11.41.00.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.60.81.01.31.72.21.30.41.02.42.21.61.10.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.40.50.71.01.41.81.41.61.91.81.71.41.10.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.40.50.71.01.21.51.71.51.41.00.90.80.60.40.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.50.61.11.31.10.90.80.60.40.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.40.60.70.60.50.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.40.30.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.5111111111111CC-5AAAAAAAAAAAA2CC-3CC-3CC-5UTILITY TRANSFORMER- 208/120v SECONDARY- SEE GENERAL NOTES LISTED BELOW- VERIFY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENT w/UTILITY1GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:•COORDINATE WITH THE LOCAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANY TO VERIFY THE EXACT REQUIREMENTS ANDREGULATIONS FOR THE TRANSFORMER AND ALL CORRESPONDING EQUIPMENT.•THE CUSTOMER SHALL INSTALL, OWN, AND MAINTAIN A CONCRETE TRANSFORMER PAD WHENEVER THEUNDERGROUND SERVICE REQUIRES A THREE PHASE TRANSFORMER PAD.•ALL CONDUITS SHALL ENTER THROUGH THE WINDOW OPENING PROVIDED IN THE PAD FOUNDATION. THESECONDUITS SHALL BE CUT OFF SO THE TOP OF THE CONDUIT IS FLUSH WITH THE SURFACE OF THE CONCRETEPAD.•ALL METALLIC CONDUITS SHALL BE FITTED WITH AN INSULATING BUSHING.•THE TOP OF THE PAD SHALL BE LEVEL AND ALL EDGES AND CORNERS ROUNDED OFF.STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS:•MINIMUM SOIL BEARING CAPACITY OF 2000 lb/sq. ft.•CONCRETE MIX SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM STRENGTH OF 3500 lb/sq. in. AFTER 28 DAYS. MAXIMUM AGGREGRATE3/4".•MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER OVER REINFORCING STEEL 2" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.•REINFORCING STEEL ASTM-A615 GRADE 60 PLACED APPROXIMATELY 6" O.C. EACH DIRECTION AND SECURELYTIED TOGETHER.CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS:•CONCRETE PADS SHALL BE INSTALLED NO LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM DOORS, COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS, ORWINDOWS WHICH CAN BE OPENED AND NO LESS THAN 10 FEET FROM PERMANENT (NON-OPENING) WINDOWS.•A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 3' IS REQUIRED BETWEEN CONCRETE PADS AND NON-COMBUSTIBLE WALLS (MIN. 2 HRFIRE RATING)•A MINIMUM OF 3' OF WORKING SPACE MUST BE MAINTAINED FROM EACH SIDE OF THE TRANSFORMER AND AMINIMUM OF 10' MUST BE MAINTAINED ON THE FRONT (DOOR SIDE) OF THE TRANSFORMER. THIS IS TO ALLOWFOR COOLING, REPLACEMENT, AND OPERATIONS.•WHEN THE PAD IS LOCATED NEAR A TRAFFIC AREA, 8" STEEL POSTS FILLED WITH CONCRETE MUST BE PLACED ATCORNERS OF PAD FOR PROTECTION.SECONDARY REQUIREMENTS:•CONDUITS FOR THE SECONDARY CABLE SHALL BE PLACED ON THE RIGHT SIDE NEAR THE FRONT OF THE CABLEOPENING TO ACCOMMODATE SECONDARY CABLE TERMINATIONS AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FOR THETRANSFORMER OIL DRAIN VALVES. THE NUMBER OF CONDUITS SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE DAKOTAELECTRIC DIAGRAM.•THE LARGEST SECONDARY SIZE CONDUCTOR SHALL BE 750 kcmil.•A MAXIMUM OF 6 CONDUITS MAY BE USED FOR INSTALLATIONS OF LESS THAN 500 kVA•A MAXIMUM OF 8 CONDUITS MAY BE USED FOR INSTALLATIONS OF 500kVA TO 2000 kVA1.UTILITY TRANSFORMER:- COORDINATE INSTALLATION WITH XCEL ENERGY- ADHERE FULLY TO THE EXCEL ENERGY STANDARD FOR ELECTRIC INSTALLATION AND USE- THE EC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE CT CABINET AND MOUNTING BOTH THE METER SOCKET ANDTHE CT CABINET AS WELL AS INSTALLING THE CT'S. (XCEL ENERGY WILL SUPPLY THE CT'S AND THE METERSOCKET)- THE SECONDARY LUGS ON THE TRANSFORMER ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING 8 SETS OF 500 MCMCOPPER OR 8 SETS OF 750 MCM ALUMINUM - ADDITIONAL CONDUCTORS REQUIRE A SEPARATECONNECTION CABINET. IF A SEPARATE CONNECTION CABINET IS REQUIRED, THE EC IS RESPONSIBLE FORTHE PAD WITH UNDERGROUND WIREWAY (REFER TO EXCEL ENERGY STANDARDS)- TRANSFORMER SHOWN AT A PROPOSED LOCATION. THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE TRANSFORMER ISDICTATED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY.2. PROVIDE (4) SEPARATE 4" CONDUITS FOR BUILDING SERVICES:- (1) TELEPHONE / INTERNET, (1) CATV, (1) SPARE, (1) FUTURE FIBER- VERIFY EXACT SIZE(S) AND SOURCE LOCATIONS WITH LOCAL PROVIDERS- TERMINATE CONDUITS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ROOM (222) LOCATED ON THE 1st FLOOR3. THERE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF FOUR QUARTER BENDS (360 DEGREES TOTAL) BETWEENPULL POINTS, FOR EXAMPLE, CONDUIT BODIES AND BOXES. BOXES AND CONDUIT BODIES USED AS PULL ORJUNCTION BOXES SHALL COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 314.28 OF THE NEC.4. ALL UNDERGROUND SECONDARY CONDUCTOR INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY IN FULL WITH THE NEC. REFER TOARTICLE 230.6 PRIOR TO BEGINNING INSTALLATION REGARDING WHEN CONDUCTORS ARE CONSIDEREDOUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.SHEET NOTESGENERAL TRANSFORMER NOTESLIGHTING CONTROL NOTE•ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO BE FED THROUGH A LIGHTING CONTACTOR ANDCONTROLLED VIA PHOTOCONTROL, ALLOWING THE LIGHTING TO AUTOMATICALLYSWITCH ON AND OFF AS NEEDED. THE LIGHTING CONTACTOR IS LOCATED IN THEMAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM (118) LOCATED ON THE 1st FLOOR. THE PHOTOCELL ISTO BE LOCATED IN A EASILY ACCESSIBLE LOCATION THAT DOES NOT DETRACTFROM ANY ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING. FOR BEST RESULTS, IT SHOULD BE PLACEDON THE NORTHEAST FACE OF THE BUILDING.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:‹&RS\ULJKW&LWLHV(GJH//&$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG SHEETNUMBERThis document contains confidential or proprietary information of Cities Edge, LLC. Neither this document nor the information herein is to be reproduced, distributed, used or disclosed either in whole or in part except as authorized by Cities Edge, LLC.PROJECTNUMBERSHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:ISSUEPHASEDATEISSUEDPROJECT OWNER:PROJECT LOCATION:Certification & Seal:C:\Users\hgoodall\Documents\30906 - ARH - AC Hotel - SLP,MN - Central File_hgoodall.rvt 12/21/2015 2:47:30 PM AC HOTELBY MARRIOT12-18-2015PRELIMINARY SUBMITTALRevisionDateE002ELECTRICALSITE PLAN1ELECTRICAL SITE PLANScale: 1" = 15'-0"LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULEMANUFACTURERCATALOG NUMBERVOLTAGELAMPSMOUNTING#TYPEFINISHDESCRIPTIONNOTESCONTROLTAGAA CYCLONECY-11T4-VS3AR-5L-67W-4K POST TOP AREA LIGHT120 N/A LED / DRIVER POST TOPTBDCONTACTOR HAPCO #Y7C-14F6-SFO-BA-GFICC-3 LEOTEKAR18-15M-MV-NW-3-XX-350 POLE MOUNTED AREA LIGHT120 N/A LED / DRIVER POLE - 25'-0" TBDCONTACTOR PARKING AREA LIGHTINGCC-5 LEOTEKAR18-20M-MV-NW-5-XX-350 POLE MOUNTED AREA LIGHT120 N/A LED / DRIVER POLE - 25'-0" TBDCONTACTOR PARKING AREA LIGHTINGSITE LIGHTING STATISTICS.4 fc3.4 fc1.0 fcTOTAL POWER934 WATTSAREAIWòPOWER DENSITYZDWWVIWò8.5:1MAXIMUMAVERAGEMINIMUM MAX / MIN AVERAGE / MIN2.5:1PHOTOMETRICS(parking lot)City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 25 DNDNUPUPSSNO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE W A Y Z A T A B O U L E V A R D UTICA AVENUEPHASE I RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETEPAVERS PARKING LOTPHASE II RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY EXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALKCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKPROPOSED HEATEDCONCRETE RAMP TOUNDERGROUND PARKINGPROPOSED UNDERGROUNDSTORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEMEXISTING SIGN(TYP)EXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTER24.00'114.00'R8.00'99.00'106.00'95.00'24.00'6.00'24.00'14.00'R3.00'18.00' TYP.9.00' TYP.R3.00'R8.00'R10.00'30.30'R10.00'R10.00'R10.00'R10.00'R10.00'R10.00'R3.00'R9.33'R3.00'R10.00'1.50'R3.00'PROPOSEDCONCRETESIDEWALKPROPOSED DUMPSTERENCLOSUREPROPOSED 6-STORYHOTEL BUILDING FFE: 882.0'UNDERGROUND PARKING FFE: 872.0'BUILDING FOOTPRINT =APPROXIMATELY 12,615 SF22.00'R3.00'R10.00'PROPOSED CONCRETERETAINING WALLSPROPOSED 8"CONCRETE CURBS30.06' TO SETBACK22.28' TO PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED MONUMENTSIGN(8) PROPOSED BICYCLEPARKING SPACES - (2)ADDITIONAL SPACES INUNDERGROUND PARKINGSEE DETAIL ON SHEET C60281.00'R3.00'R5.00'R8.00'R3.00'10.00' BUILDING SETBACKPROPOSED AREA WELLPROPOSED AREA WELL5.00' EASEMENTR3.00'APPROXIMATE OUTLINE OFCANOPY AND FOOTINGSEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK2.45' TO SETBACKCONCRETE WALK/CURB RETURNSTO BE BUILT PER MnDOT STANDARDPLATE NO. 7035N SHOWN ONPAGE C601.SHEETNUMBERPROJECTNUMBERISSUEPHASE:DATEISSUED:MARK DATE DESCRIPTION20'040'10'SHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT OWNER:PROJECT LOCATION:I:\30900\30906 - AC by Marriott - St. Louis Park, MN\01. Drawings\Autocad\Civil\30906 - C200.dwg Printed by: ekaul on Feb 29, 2016 - 8:40am C 30906126 UNIT6 STORYAC HOTEL BYMARRIOTTACSLP, L.L.C.GOLDEN VALLEY /ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY REVIEWS02/29/201642202JAMES R. SKOWRONSKITyped or Printed Name:Registration Number:Signature:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 2/29/2016C200PROPOSED SITE PLANAREAS OF SITE1. TOTAL AREA OF SITE = 1.615 ACRES (70,349.4 SF)2.727$/$5($2)',6785%$1&( “$&5(6 6) GENERAL NOTES1. ALL SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCALJURISDICTION.2. DIMENSIONS ON CURB AND GUTTER ARE TO THE FACE OF THE CURB, INCLUDINGRADIUS DIMENSIONS.SITE INFORMATION1.3$5&(/$5($ “$&5(6 6) 1.1. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 94.8% (INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY CENTRAL PARK WEST - PHASE 1 & 2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENT REPORT, DATED MAY 7, 2015)1.2. PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 76.49%1.3. NET DECREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 9,278 SF2. CURRENT USE: EMPTY LOT3. PAST USE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT & PARKING FACILITIES4. PROPOSED BREAKFAST/LOUNGE AREAS WILL TOTAL 3008 SF5. PROPOSED PARKING:5.1. (27) REGULAR PARKING STALLS IN ON-SITE UNDERGROUND PARKING5.2. (46) REGULAR PARKING STALLS IN ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING LOT5.3. (6) HANDICAP STALLS IN ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING LOT5.4. FOR TEMPORARY PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION: (110) REGULARSTALLS WILL BE PROVIDED AS APPROVED BY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY5.5. FOR OFF-SITE PARKING AT FULL DEVELOPMENT BUILD-OUT: (110) REGULARSTALLS WILL BE PROVIDED PER PARKING AGREEMENTLEGENDLOT LINEPROPOSED LIGHT DUTYPAVEMENTPROPOSEDUNDERGROUND STORAGENORTHCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 26 DNDNUPUPSTM x STM x STMx STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x S T M x S T M x S T M x S T M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx S T M x S T M xSTM xSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMx STMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTM x STM x Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx W x W x Wx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxS STMx STMx8828828828828818818818808 8 0 880880ExExExExExExExExEx880879879879879879879 8 7 9 878878878 878878878SSSSx SSx SSx SSx SSSSSSSSSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxS T M STM STM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TMSTMSTM STMSTMSTMSTMSTMSAN SAN SAN WWWWSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMNO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE WWW A Y Z A T A B O U L E V A R D UTICA AVENUEPROPOSED 6-STORYHOTEL BUILDING FFE: 882.0'UNDERGROUND PARKING FFE: 872.0'PROPOSED NYLOPLAST DRAIN INLETRIM ELEV: 881.00'INV (SE) = 876.85'882881881881881880880880880 879879878PHASE I RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETEPAVERS PARKING LOTPHASE II RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY EXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING SIGN(TYP)EXISTING 24.00' ACCESS EASEMENTEXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYEX STM MHRIM: 877.52'INV (W): 868.81'INV (S): 871.02'INV (E): 868.81'INV (NW): 873.42'EX STM MHRIM: 877.24'INV (W): 868.69'INV (S): 872.74'INV (E): 868.69'INV (NW): 873.04EX STM CBRIM: 877.32'PROPOSED CB#5RIM = 877.78'INV (N) = 873.42'INV (SW) = 873.32'INV (SUMP) = 870.32'EX STM CBRIM: 878.08'INV (SE): 874.87'EX STM MHRIM: 878.47'INV (NW,SE) = 868.52'INV (SW) = 869.52'EX STM MHRIM: 877.86'EX SAN MHRIM: 878.01'INV (W): 861.01'INV (E): 861.01'SAN MH(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)RIM: 879.03'INV (E): 864.23'EX STM CBRIM: 877.42'INV (SE): 874.02'EX STM CBRIM: 877.15'INV (N): 871.45'EX STM CBRIM: 876.82'INV (N): 872.52'INV (E): 872.52'EX STM CBRIM: 876.85'INV (W): 872.98'EX STM CBRIM: 877.87'EX STM CBRIM: 877.19'EX STM CBRIM: 876.87'EX 54" RCP STM EX 54 " R C P S T M E X 54 " RC P S TM EX 12" S A N10" WATERSERVICE LINE(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)EX STM INLRIM = 881.88'INV (NE) = 875.85'INV (E) = 875.75'PROPOSED CB#4RIM = 877.78'INV (NW) = 873.89'INV (SE) = 873.79'INV (SUMP) = 870.79'PROPOSED CB#3RIM = 878.82'INV (NW) = 874.49'INV (SE) = 874.39'INV (SUMP) = 871.39'PROPOSED CB#1RIM = 879.56'INV (W) = 875.63'INV (SE) = 875.53'INV (SUMP) = 872.53'PROPOSED CB#2RIM = 879.38'INV (NW) = 875.29'INV (SE) = 875.19'INV (SUMP) = 872.19'24LF 12" HDPE @ 1.0%70LF 12" HDPE @ 1.0%50LF 12" HDPE @ 1.0%39LF 15" HDPE @ 0.5%38LF 12" HDPE @ 1.0%PROPOSED JB#6RIM = 878.79'INV (S,E) = 873.13'INV (W, 18" HDPE) = 873.03'PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURESEE DETAIL ON SHEET C600RIM = 880.65'INV (S) = 872.97'INV (NE) = 870.74'67LF 18" HDPE @ 2.0%PROPOSED TRENCHDRAINRIM = 871.92'TO BE CONNECTED TO UNDERGROUNDPARKING PLUMBING.SEE PLUMBING PLANS FOR MORE DETAIL61LF 8" PVC @ 1.64%PROPOSED MONUMENTSIGNUNDERGROUND ADS STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERSYSTEM. BOTTOM INVERT OF ROCK = 870.97'BOTTOM INVERT OF CHAMBERS = 872.22'FINAL SYSTEM DESIGN PENDING ADS TECHNICALSUPPORT AND CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT/DETAILS881.25'881.50'881.00'881.50'881.95'881.77'880.90'879.85'881.95'881.95'881.65'881.55'881.05'881.82'878.75'878.80'880.56'879.98'879.13'880.60'880.05'879.98''880.46'879.55'879.32'879.35'880.78'879.84'877.96'878.26'879.42'879.55'878.93'880.50'880.32'880.15880.75872.00' (AT GARAGEENTRANCE BELOW)SLOPE DOWN879.40'877.90'879.25'PROPOSED DI#6ARIM = 879.14'INV (N) = 873.79'INV (SUMP) = 870.79'66LF 12" HDPE @ 1.0%EX STM CBRIM: 878.08'INV (SE): 874.98'8" PVCSANITARY SERVICE(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)881.77879.05879.29881.29881.95'(FIRST FLOORDOOR)881.40'881.95'880.35'881.43'SLOPE DOWN @ 1.0%872.82'881.90'881.95'SHEETNUMBERPROJECTNUMBERISSUEPHASE:DATEISSUED:MARK DATE DESCRIPTION20'040'10'SHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT OWNER:PROJECT LOCATION:I:\30900\30906 - AC by Marriott - St. Louis Park, MN\01. Drawings\Autocad\Civil\30906 - C300.dwg Printed by: ekaul on Feb 29, 2016 - 8:41am C 30906126 UNIT6 STORYAC HOTEL BYMARRIOTTACSLP, L.L.C.GOLDEN VALLEY /ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY REVIEWS02/29/201642202JAMES R. SKOWRONSKITyped or Printed Name:Registration Number:Signature:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 2/29/2016C300STORM DRAINAGE& GRADING PLAN GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE NOTES1. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO FINISHED GRADE.2. CLEAR ALL TREES, BRUSH, STUMPS AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM AREAS TO BE FILLED.3. REMOVE ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL (MUCK OR NON-COMPACTABLE MATERIAL) FROM AREAS TO BE FILLED.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL, WHEN GRADING BETWEEN CONTOURS AND BETWEEN POINTS OF SPOT ELEVATIONS, GRADE ON A UNIFORMSLOPE.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL, FOR ALL GRASSED AREAS, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING ERODED SOIL, GRASS SEED AND/OR MULCHUNTIL AN APPROVED STAND OF GRASS IS ESTABLISHED.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL, BEFORE BEGINNING GRADING WORK ON SITE, INSTALL SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. ASSEDIMENT BUILD UP AROUND SILT FENCE, REMOVE SEDIMENT AND REPLACE WHERE EROSION HAS TAKEN PLACE.7. EACH SECTION OF PIPE SHALL BE LAID TO SPECIFIED LINE AND LAID UPGRADE.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM DEMOLITION AND DISPOSE OFF SITE UNLESSOTHERWISE ADVISED BY OWNER.9. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP ALL ROADS ADJACENT TO THE SITE CLEAN DURING CONSTRUCTION.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES DURING PIPE LINE INSTALLATION. CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FORLOCATIONS ON SITE.11. ALL ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION ARE TO CONFORM TO LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. (LATESTREVISION AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION.)12. ALL NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SLOPES WHICH ARE STEEPER THAN 3 TO 1 MUST BE STABILIZED BY INSTALLATION OF EROSIONCONTROL MATTING AND SEEDED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.LEGENDSSxEXISTINGSANITARY SEWERSTMxEXISTING STORMSEWEREXISTING GASMAINGxEXISTINGOVERHEAD ELEC.OHEEXISTING BURIEDELEC.ExEXISTING BURIEDFIBER OPTICEXISTING CHAIN LINKFENCEXXXXFOxEXISTING BURIEDTELEPHONETxEXISTING BURIEDCABLE TVTVxWxEXISTINGWATERMAINPROPOSED MAJORCONTOURSPROPOSED MINORCONTOURSLOT LINENORTHSITE INFORMATION1.3$5&(/$5($ “$&5(6 6) 1.1. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 94.8%(INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CENTRAL PARK WEST - PHASE 1& 2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT, DATED MAY 7,2015)1.2. PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 76.49%1.3. NET DECREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 9,278 SF2. CURRENT USE: EMPTY LOT3. PAST USE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT & PARKING FACILITIES4. PROPOSED PARKING:4.1. (27) REGULAR PARKING STALLS IN ON-SITE UNDERGROUNDPARKING4.2. (46) REGULAR PARKING STALLS IN ON-SITE SURFACEPARKING LOT4.3. (6) HANDICAP STALLS IN ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING LOT4.4. FOR TEMPORARY PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION: (110)REGULAR SURFACE STALLS WILL BE PROVIDED ASAPPROVED BY CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY4.5. FOR OFF-SITE PARKING AT FULL DEVELOPMENT BUILD-OUT:(110) REGULAR STALLS WILL BE PROVIDED IN PARKING RAMPPER PARKING AGREEMENTGENERAL NOTES1. CONNECTION TO CITY STORM SEWER MAIN REQUIRESINSPECTION BY PUBLIC WORKS. CONTRACTOR SHALLCOORDINATE WITH CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY.EXISTING MAJORCONTOURSEXISTING MINORCONTOURSCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 27 DNDNUPUPSTM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STMx STM x S T M x S T M x S T M x S T M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx S T M x S T M xSTM xSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMx STMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTM x STM x Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx W x W x Wx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxS STMx STMx8828828828828818818818808 8 0 880880ExExExExExExExExEx880879879879879879879 8 7 9 878878878878878878SSSSx SSx SSx SSx SSSSSSSSSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxS T M STM STM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TMSTMSTM STMSTMSTMSTMSTMSAN SAN SAN WWWWSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMNO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE WWW A Y Z A T A B O U L E V A R D UTICA AVENUEPROPOSED 6-STORYHOTEL BUILDING FFE: 882.0'UNDERGROUND PARKING FFE: 872.0'8828818818 8 1881880880880 880 8798798 7 8 PHASE I RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETEPAVERS PARKING LOTPHASE II RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY EXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING SIGN(TYP)EXISTING 24.00' ACCESS EASEMENTEXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYEX STM MHRIM: 877.52'INV (W): 868.81'INV (S): 871.02'INV (E): 868.81'INV (NW): 873.42'EX STM MHRIM: 877.24'INV (W): 868.69'INV (S): 872.74'INV (E): 868.69'INV (NW): 873.04EX STM CBRIM: 877.32'EX STM CBRIM: 878.08'INV (SE): 874.87'EX STM MHRIM: 878.47'INV (NW,SE) = 868.52'INV (SW) = 869.52'EX STM MHRIM: 877.86'EX SAN MHRIM: 878.01'INV (W): 861.01'INV (E): 861.01'SAN MH(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)RIM: 879.03'INV (E): 864.23'EX STM CBRIM: 877.42'INV (SE): 874.02'EX STM CBRIM: 877.15'INV (N): 871.45'EX STM CBRIM: 876.82'INV (N): 872.52'INV (E): 872.52'EX STM CBRIM: 876.85'INV (W): 872.98'EX STM CBRIM: 877.87'EX STM CBRIM: 877.19'EX STM CBRIM: 876.87'EX 54" RCP STM EX 54 " R C P S T M EX 12" S A N10" WATERSERVICE LINE(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)EX STM INLRIM = 881.88'INV (E) = 875.75'INV (NE) = 876.75'PROPOSED MONUMENTSIGNEXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO BERELOCATEDƒ%(1'10" FIRE AND DOMESTIC WATERSERVICE STUB TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS IN SPRING, 2016)ƒ%(1'72&211(&7PROPOSED SERVICEWITH EXISTING STUB67 LF 10" FIRE ANDDOMESTIC WATER SERVICE(MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL)FIRE SERVICEPROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE #1RIM = 878.75INV (E) = TBDEXISTING INV (W) = 866.17'64 LF 8" PVC SANITARYSERVICE @ TBD%PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE #2RIM = 880.10INV (NW) = TBDINV (SE) = TBD10 LF 8" PVC SANITARYSERVICE @ TBD%8" PVC SANITARY SERVICE STUB(TO BE INSTALLED BY OTHERS INSPRING, 2016)RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANT ANDWATER SERVICE LINEEX STM CBRIM: 878.08'INV (SE): 874.98'DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE6" WATER SERVICE LINE TOPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT (TO BE INSTALLED BY OTHERS IN SPRING, 2016)PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT (TO BE INSTALLED BY OTHERS IN SPRING, 2016)EXISTING 54" RCP STORMEXISTING 18" D.I.P. FORCEMAIN8" PVCSANITARY SERVICE(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MEAN SEALEVEL DATUM.2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORVERIFYING THE EXACT LOCATIONS ANDELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIESPRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. IFCONDITIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTFROM THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS, STOPWORK AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUSTMANHOLE RIMS, CLEANOUTS, ANDAPPURTENANCES TO MATCH FINISHEDGROUND ELEVATION.4. ALL WATER AND SEWER LINES MUST HAVEA MINIMUM OF 10 FEET HORIZONTALSEPARATION AND 18 INCHES VERTICALSEPARATION.5. ALL SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE 6 INCHESIN DIAMETER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATECONNECTION TO EXISTING SANITARYSEWER SYSTEM.7. UTILITY AND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORSSHALL COORDINATE INSTALLATION OFSEWER SERVICES ALL THE WAY INTO THEBUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE CITYINSPECTION AND TESTING.SHEETNUMBERPROJECTNUMBERISSUEPHASE:DATEISSUED:MARK DATE DESCRIPTION20'040'10'SHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT OWNER:PROJECT LOCATION:I:\30900\30906 - AC by Marriott - St. Louis Park, MN\01. Drawings\Autocad\Civil\30906 - C400.dwg Printed by: ekaul on Feb 29, 2016 - 8:41am C 30906126 UNIT6 STORYAC HOTEL BYMARRIOTTACSLP, L.L.C.GOLDEN VALLEY /ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY REVIEWS02/29/201642202JAMES R. SKOWRONSKITyped or Printed Name:Registration Number:Signature:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 2/29/2016C400UTILITY PLANNORTH1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM.2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THEEXACT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. IFCONDITIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THATSHOWN ON THE PLANS, STOP WORK AND NOTIFY THEENGINEER.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST FIRE HYDRANTS, VALVESAND APPURTENANCES TO MATCH FINISHED GROUNDELEVATION.4. 8 MIL MIN. POLYWRAP ON ALL D.I.P. IS REQUIRED5. ALL COMPONENTS OF THE WATER SYSTEM, UP TO THEWATER METER OR FIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL UTILIZEPROTECTIVE INTERNAL COATINGS MEETING CURRENTANSI/AWWA STANDARDS FOR CEMENT MORTAR LINING ORSPECIAL COATINGS. THE USE OF UNLINED OR UNCOATED(CAST-IRON, GRAY-IRON, STEEL, GALVANIZED, ETC.) PIPESHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.6. COMBINATION FIRE AND DOMESTIC SERVICES MUSTTERMINATE WITH A THREAD ON FLANGE OR AN MJ TO FLANGEADAPTER.7. UTILITY AND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS SHALLCOORDINATE INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICE PIPES,FITTINGS, AND VALVES ALL THE WAY INTO THE BUILDING TOACCOMMODATE CITY INSPECTION AND TESTING.WATER DISTRIBUTION NOTESSANITARY SEWER NOTESLEGENDSSxEXISTINGSANITARY SEWERSTMxEXISTING STORMSEWEREXISTING GASMAINGxEXISTINGOVERHEAD ELEC.OHEEXISTING BURIEDELEC.ExEXISTING BURIEDFIBER OPTICEXISTING CHAIN LINKFENCEXXXXFOxEXISTING BURIEDTELEPHONETxEXISTING BURIEDCABLE TVTVxWxEXISTINGWATERMAINPROPOSED MAJORCONTOURSPROPOSED MINORCONTOURSLOT LINEEXISTING MAJORCONTOURSEXISTING MINORCONTOURSSANPROPOSEDSANITARY SEWERSTMPROPOSEDSTORM SEWERWPROPOSEDWATERMAIN1. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UTILITIESDIVISION (952-924-2558) SHALL BECONTACTED AT LEAST 48-HOURS PRIORTO ANY WATER SHUT-OFFS, SEWERCONNECTIONS, EXCAVATIONS, OR ANYOTHER WORK RELATED TO THE CITY'SUTILITY SYSTEM. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTINGTHE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ANDSTORM SEWER SYSTEM DURINGCONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE COST OFREMOVING AND CLEANING OF ANY DEBRISIN THE LINES BOTH DURING AND AFTERCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.2. CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS AREREQUIRED FOR ANY WORK WITHIN THERIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING UTILITY WORK,CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAYAPRONS, PARKING BAYS, ROAD CLOSURESAND SIDEWALK CLOSURES.3. AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS CONSISTENTWITH CITY STANDARDS WILL BE REQUIREDPRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY.4. ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITYRIGHT-OF-WAY AND WILL REQUIREAS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS TO BESUBMITTED IN PDF AND AUTOCADFORMATS.CITY UTILITY NOTESCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 28 DNDNUPUPSTM x STM x STMx STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x S T M x S T M x S T M x S T M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STMx S T M x S T M xSTM xSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMx STMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTM x STM x Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx W x W x Wx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxS STMx STMx8828828828828818818818808 8 0 880880ExExExExExExExExEx880879879879879879879 8 7 9 878878878 878878878SSSSx SSx SSx SSx SSSSSSSSSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxS T M STM STM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TMSTMSTM STMSTMSTMSTMSTMSAN SAN SAN WWWWSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMNO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANENO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE WWW A Y Z A T A B O U L E V A R D UTICA AVENUEPROPOSED 6-STORYHOTEL BUILDING FFE: 882.0'UNDERGROUND PARKING FFE: 872.0'8828818818 8 1881880880880 880 879879878PHASE I RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETEPAVERS PARKING LOTPHASE II RESIDENTIALBUILDINGEXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING CONCRETECURB & GUTTEREXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING 24.00' ACCESS EASEMENTEXISTING ASPHALTDRIVEWAYEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEYEX STM MHRIM: 877.52'INV (W): 868.81'INV (S): 871.02'INV (E): 868.81'INV (NW): 873.42'EX STM MHRIM: 877.24'INV (W): 868.69'INV (S): 872.74'INV (E): 868.69'INV (NW): 873.04EX STM CBRIM: 877.32'EX STM CBRIM: 878.08'INV (SE): 874.87'EX STM MHRIM: 878.47'INV (NW,SE) = 868.52'INV (SW) = 869.52'EX STM MHRIM: 877.86'EX SAN MHRIM: 878.01'INV (W): 861.01'INV (E): 861.01'SAN MH(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)RIM: 879.03'INV (E): 864.23'EX STM CBRIM: 877.42'INV (SE): 874.02'EX STM CBRIM: 877.15'INV (N): 871.45'EX STM CBRIM: 876.82'INV (N): 872.52'INV (E): 872.52'EX STM CBRIM: 876.85'INV (W): 872.98'EX STM CBRIM: 877.87'EX STM CBRIM: 877.19'EX STM CBRIM: 876.87'EX 54" RCP STM EX 54 " R C P S T M E X 54 " RC P S TM EX 12" S A N10" WATERSERVICE LINE(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)PROPOSED MONUMENTSIGN345 LF SILT FENCE84 LF SILT FENCECONSTRUCTION ENTRANCETRACKING PAD - SEE DETAILON SHEET C600159 LF SILT FENCEINLET PROTECTION (TYP.)SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C6008" PVCSANITARY SERVICE(TO BE INSTALLEDBY OTHERS)EX STM INLRIM = 881.88'INV (E) = 875.75'INV (NE) = 876.75'SHEETNUMBERPROJECTNUMBERISSUEPHASE:DATEISSUED:MARK DATE DESCRIPTION20'040'10'SHEET TITLE:PROJECT TITLE:PROJECT OWNER:PROJECT LOCATION:I:\30900\30906 - AC by Marriott - St. Louis Park, MN\01. Drawings\Autocad\Civil\30906 - C500.dwg Printed by: ekaul on Feb 29, 2016 - 8:42am C 30906126 UNIT6 STORYAC HOTEL BYMARRIOTTACSLP, L.L.C.GOLDEN VALLEY /ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY REVIEWS02/29/201642202JAMES R. SKOWRONSKITyped or Printed Name:Registration Number:Signature:Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 2/29/2016LEGENDPROPOSED MAJORCONTOURSPROPOSED MINORCONTOURSLOT LINENORTHEXISTING MAJORCONTOURSEXISTING MINORCONTOURS1. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN PLACE AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES.2. ALL SILT FENCES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY. CLEANING, ADJUSTING AND REPLACING EROSION MEASURES SHALL BE DONE AS NECESSARY THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. ALL EROSIONMEASURES SHALL BE IN WORKING CONDITION AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.3. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAILS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.4. SEDIMENT FROM OVERLAND FLOW SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE WORK SITE BY INSTALLING SILT FENCING PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS LOCATED DOWNHILL FROM THE WORKAREA.5. STONE TRACKING PADS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION SITE EXITS TO PREVENT TRACKING OF SOIL. TRACKED SOIL SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM PAVED ROADS LOCATED NEARTHE CONSTRUCTION SITE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.6. EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED ONLY AS NECESSARY TO PERFORM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. CLEARING OF LARGE AREAS THAT ARE CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OFCONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.7. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED AND VEGETATED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER DISTURBANCE.8. EROSION MEASURES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL THE AREAS SERVED HAVE ESTABLISHED VEGETATIVE COVER.9. TEMPORARY MULCH SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF GRADING OPERATIONS. ALL AREAS OF EXPOSED SOIL SHALL BE COVERED WITH A STRAW MULCH. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ATTHE RATE OF 1.5 TONS PER ACRE, MINIMUM IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPREADING, THE STRAW MULCH SHALL BE PROTECTED BY COVERING WITH A MAT OR CRIMPING. MULCHING SHALL BEREPLACED AND CRIMPED AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE COVER UNTIL PERMANENT10. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES MAY BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL EROSION AND/OR OFFSITE SEDIMENTATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE STABILITY OFALL GRADED AND/OR CLEARED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENT GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED. ANY AREAS DAMAGED BY EROSION SHALL BE REPAIRED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION ANDPROTECTED FROM FURTHER EROSION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.11. CONTRACTOR MUST TAKE ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO MINIMIZE TRACKING MUD ONTO PAVED ROADWAY FROM CONSTRUCTION AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE MUD/SOILDAILY TO PREVENT TRACKING.12. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLYCEASED.13. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER MUST BE PROVIDED CONSISTING OF A SUITABLE, FAST-GROWING, DENSE GRASS SEED MIX SPREAD AT 1.5 TIMES THE USUAL RATE PER ACRE. IFTEMPORARY COVER IS TO REMAIN IN PLACE BEYOND THE PRESENT GROWING SEASON, TWO-THIRDS OF THE SEED MIX SHALL BE COMPOSED OF PERENNIAL GRASSES.14. SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE EITHER MULCHED OR COVERED BY FIBROUS BLANKETS TO PROTECT SEEDS AND LIMIT EROSION.EROSION CONTROL NOTESCONSTRUCTION PHASINGPROVIDE VEGETATIVE COVER TO NEWLY GRADED AREAS BY ACCEPTABLE SEEDINGMETHODS AND MIXTURES. SEEDING FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SHALLBE AS FOLLOWS:OATSCEREAL RYEWINTER WHEATANNUAL RYEGRASS131*131**131**80**LBS./ACREEROSION CONTROL / SEEDINGSPECIES* SPRING AND SUMMER SEEDING** FALL SEEDING1. CONSTRUCTION IS ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN IN THE SPRING OF 2016. DEMOLITIONAND REMOVAL OF ANY EXISTING MATERIALS WILL OCCUR FIRST2. PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALLBE PUT IN PLACE AND MAINTAINED UNTIL SOIL STABILIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE3. AFTER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE IN-PLACE, SITE GRADING AND UTILITYINSTALLATION WORK CAN BEGIN4. FOLLOWING INITIAL GRADING WORK, THE CONCRETE BUILDING FOUNDATION/SLABCAN BE CONSTRUCTED5. CONSTRUCTION ON THE BUILDING CAN THEN BEGIN IN COORDINATION WITHREMAINING SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING AGGREGATE BASE COURSEINSTALLATION, CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION, ASPHALT PAVING, CONCRETEWORK, ETC.1. TOTAL AREA OF SITE = 1.615 ACRES2.727$/$5($2)',6785%$1&( “$&5(6AREAS OF SITESILT FENCECONSTRUCTIONTRACKING PADEROSION MATTINGINLET PROTECTIONC500EROSION CONTROLPLANCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 29 S T M STM STM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TM S TMSTMSTM STMSTMSTMSTMSTMSAN SAN SAN WWWWSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMSTMWWSTMx STMx STMx STMx STMx STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x S T M x S T M x S T M x S T M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x ST M x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STM x STMx STMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxGxExExExExExExExExExSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxSTMxS ST. LOUIS PARKGOLDEN VALLEYCS9JV26EP8SH139RO26RG16SA10RG5SH11AF3HS29EP10SH50RG9DL3SS193SS48SS62JS33JS8QE2AF4JV3JS14HS23AM60HR18SA29HR18HS70GT1GT1GT1GT1GT1RO7SODSODPROPOSED AC HOTELTCD28QE1QE1JS9SH55SH27RG48RG13SH13stampdescriptiondatesheet numbertitlecolberg|tews3101 East Franklin Avenue | Minneapolis, MN 55406www.colbergtews.comAC Hotel by Marriott St. Louis Park, MN D R A F TCITY SUBMITTAL1-4-2016I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me orunder my direct supervision and that I am a dulyregistered landscape architect in the State of Minnesota.signaturenamedatereg. no.GARRETT A. TEWS 48408 1/4/2016CITY SUBMITTAL (rev. 1)1-25-2016CITY SUBMITTAL (rev. 2)1-28-2016CITY SUBMITTAL (rev. 3)2-25-2016LANDSCAPE PLANL 1000 10'20'NORTH40'1. SEE L101 FOR PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS.2. SEE L000 FOR TREE INVENTORY PLAN.3. SEE L001 FOR TREE MITIGATION PLAN.NOTESL100 PLANTING SCHEDULETAGQTYCOMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE NOTESTREESAF 7SIENNA GLENMAPLEACER X FREMANII 'SIENNA'3"B+BSTRAIGHTLEADERBP 13WHITESPIREBIRCHBETULA POPULIFOLIA'WHITESPIRE'3"B+BSINGLESTEMGT5NORTHERNACCLAIMHONEYLOCUSTGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS'HARVE'3"B+BSTRAIGHTLEADERJV 9EASTERN REDCEDARJUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA6'B+B--QA22CRIMSON SPIREOAKQUERCUS ALBA XQUERCUS ROBUR3"B+BSTRAIGHTLEADERQE4NORTHERN PINOAKQUERCUS ELLIPSOIDALIS3"B+BSTRAIGHTLEADERSHRUBSAM 60IROQUOIS BEAUTYCHOKEBERRYARONIA MELANOCARPA'MORTON'5GAL--CS15ARCTIC FIREDOGWOODCORNUS SERICEA'FARROW'5GAL--DL64DWARF BUSHHONEYSUCKLEDIERVILLA LONICERA5GAL--JS64JUNIPER'ARCADIA'JUNIPERUS SABINA'ARCADIA'5GAL--JSC20JUNIPER 'MEDORA'JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM'MEDORA'10GAL--JV2 69GREY OWLJUNIPERJUNIPERUS VIRGINANA'GREY OWL'5GAL--RA75GRO-LOW SUMACRHUS AROMATICA'GRO-LOW'5GAL--RO76CAREFREEDELIGHT ROSEROSA 'CAREFREEDELIGHT'5GAL--TCD 28DWARF BRIGHTGOLD YEWTAXUS CUSPIDATA'DWARF BRIGHT GOLD'5GAL--PERENNIALSEP 18PURPLECONEFLOWERECHINACEA PURPUREA'POWWOW WILD BERRY'1GAL--HR 36RUBY STELLADAYLILYHEMEROCALLIS 'RUBYSTELLA'1GAL--HS 223SAPPHIRE BLUEOAT GRASSHELICTOTRICHONSEMPERVIRENS'SAPPHIRE'1GAL--RG98GOLDSTURMRUDBECKIARUDBECKIA 'GOLDSTURM'1GAL--SA67AUTUMN FIRESEDUMSEDUM X 'AUTUMN FIRE'1GAL--SS 373LITTLE BLUESTEM'BLUE HEAVEN'SCHYZACHYRIUMSCOPARIUM 'MINNBLUE A'1GAL--SH 338PRAIRIEDROPSEEDSPOROBOLUSHETEROLEPIS1GAL--City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 30 CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A B C D E F G H I K DESIGNED OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA (DORA) LEGENDWEST END SITE DATA TABLE OUTLOT A - OFFICE BUILDINGS 6.90 ACRES LOT 1 - PHASE 1 RESIDENTIAL 3.46 ACRES LOT 2 - PHASE 2 RESIDENTIAL 1.53 ACRES LOT 3 - HOTEL 1.61 ACRES TOTAL 13.49 ACRES EX.1DORA AREACALCULATIONEXHIBITPROPOSED DORA AREAS BUILDINGS OUTLOT A - OFFICE BUILDINGS 706,706 SF LOT 1 - PHASE 1 RESIDENTIAL 212,396 SF LOT 2 - PHASE 2 RESIDENTIAL 172,586 SF LOT 3 - HOTEL 84,816 SF TOTAL PROPOSED 1,176,504 SF DORA CALCULATION TOTAL REQUIRED *117,940 SF = 2.71 AC. TOTAL PROVIDED (12.9%)151,977 SF = 3.49 AC. * TOTAL REQUIRED = 141,180 - 23,240 (12% GFA - 20% PUBLIC ART REDUCTION) City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 31 CENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK/GOLDEN VALLEY, MNDLC RESIDENTIAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A B C D E F G H I K PH-3CENTRAL PARKWESTPHASE 3 PLAN LEGEND CITY PROPERTY LINE / ROW LOT LINE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING BUILDING PHASING LEGEND PHASE III - HOTEL SPRING 2016 - FALL 2017 (EXACT TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT MAY VARY DEPENDING ON MARKET CONDITIONS) DESCRIPTION OF PHASE III WORK: -CONSTRUCT HOTEL PARKING AREAS AND BUILDING -TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PARKING SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE, OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION AREA. -SNOW SHALL BE PLACED ON VACANT LOT TO SOUTH -TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN PROJECT SITE, OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION AREA. -TEMPORARY HOTEL OVERFLOW PARKING WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE VACANT AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RESIDENTIAL PHASE 1. IF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS SIMULTANEOUSLY THEN TEMPORARY OVERFLOW PARKING WILL BE SHARED WITH RESIDENTIAL PHASE 1 AND OLIVE GARDEN (FUTURE RESIDENTIAL) LOTS. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 32 AC St. Louis Park - Golden Valley, Parking Plan Based upon our experience with three existing hotels along the I-394 corridor, only our Golden Valley hotel has greater than a 1.0:1.0 guest room to parking stall ratio. In our 1.0:1.0 hotels we do not have any parking shortage issues. Therefore, we will have the attached plan on standby ready to go, however, we are extremely optimistic that we will not need to engage it with the exception of ALL employees parking at the remote lot, that will be instituted from day one. We have an already established shuttle service that currently services the Homewood Suites St. Louis Park and the Holiday Inn Express Golden Valley. Our fleet consists of a combination of Vans and Buses which will be used as needed to shuttle guests to and from our offsite parking as needed. Key points: · All employees will be required to use the offsite lot regardless of hotel occupancy. This will ensure all onsite parking is designated for hotel guests. · We will designate a vehicle from our fleet for shuttling services to offsite parking as the hotels occupancy reaches a level that offsite parking is needed and used. · We will be exploring the requirements for key members of our management team and our concierge staff to be able to provide valet service to the offsite parking location. We will have designated spaces and signage that can be used for staging valet service if valet service is needed. · All guests at check in will be given a parking notification sheet which reviews our service, location of offsite parking with map, notification of our concierge’s number so that shuttle service may be coordinated/scheduled. · Management staff will monitor onsite parking based upon occupancy and institute our offsite shuttle service and or valet service as the onsite lot reaches 85% full. · Employees will be shuttled based on weather conditions and for safety as needed. We will ensure that our guests have an excellent and quality experience while staying at the Marriott AC. We will make sure that parking challenges do not impact our guests stay negatively, their satisfaction is what is most important to us. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Title: AC Hotel by Marriott Final Planned Unit Development Page 33 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item: 8c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) RECOMMENDED ACTION:  Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat with Subdivision Variance of Arlington Row Apartments East with conditions.  Motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 5 and amending the Zoning Map from R-3 Two-Family Residence to PUD 5 for property on the 7700 block of Wayzata Boulevard and to set the Second Reading of the Ordinance for April 4, 2016. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve the Final Plat and rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the proposed development to occur? SUMMARY: Melrose Company is requesting a Preliminary and Final Plat and a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for property on the 7700 block of Wayzata Boulevard (also fronting on 13th Lane), between Rhode Island Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Approval would allow construction of a three story multi-family building that includes a total of 27 residential units. The building consists of a mix of one- and two-bedroom units with several two- level units. All required parking is provided on-site in a surface parking lot and the proposal includes landscaping, rain gardens and raised vegetable gardens. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 9, 2016. Approximately 14 residents attended. In addition approximately 20 residents were in attendance at the Public Hearing held on February 17, 2016. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat with Subdivision Variance subject to conditions, and Preliminary and Final PUD subject to conditions, at the public hearing on February 17, 2016. Approval of the Final PUD requires a supermajority of the full City Council (five of the seven members). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: No financial assistance from the City is requested. The developer received a $581,000 grant from the Met Council to incorporate solar, geothermal and underground stormwater. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:  Discussion  Resolution  Ordinance  Traffic Study  Development Plans  Planning Commission Minutes Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The proposed redevelopment site lies in the northwestern portion of the City adjacent to the Golden Valley Municipal Boundary, on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard and north side of 13th Lane, between Rhode Island Ave and Pennsylvania Ave. The site is in the Pennsylvania Park neighborhood and is currently vacant as it was formerly excess right-of-way owned by MnDOT. The site is relatively flat along 13th Lane and slopes down toward Wayzata Boulevard. Directly across the site, on the north side of Wayzata Boulevard, is the pedestrian ramp leading to the pedestrian bridge over I-394. The City evaluated this parcel as part of the Excess Land Study in 2005/6, along with a vacant parcel just to the west on Texas Ave, known as the “Arlington Row Apartments West” site. The properties were made available for purchase as part of the Excess Land Study but no proposals were submitted. At the time of the open bid process, multi-family residential development was the Council direction given for the Arlington Row-West site while mixed-use or multi-family residential development was the direction given for the 13th Lane Site (subject site). Staff have received several requests for commercial or office/medical office uses since 2007, which staff have dissuaded under the Council direction to allow only residential or mixed-use development at these sites. Melrose Company approached the City with a development concept similar to the current application in late 2013. The City Council indicated it was willing to consider acquiring the properties from MnDOT to sell them to Melrose in order to develop the properties as well as consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, plat and PUD. Melrose acquired the properties from the City in July of 2015. On November 2, 2015 the Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Plat and PUD ordinance amendment for the Arlington Row Apartments West site to allow two, three-story apartment buildings with 17 units in each building (34 units total). In December 2015, the Metropolitan Council awarded the Arlington Row development (both Arlington Row West & East) a $581,000 Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant for stormwater, geothermal and solar/energy efficiency. As a recipient of this grant the developer has agreed to ensure that six of the total units between Arlington Row West and East remain affordable to households at 80% of the area median income (AMI), as calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for a period of 15 years. Each year Metropolitan Council publishes affordability limits for affordable ownership and rental housing. Their most recent 2015 rental housing affordability limits at 80% AMI are the following amounts: one bedroom $1,299 and two bedroom $1,560. The redevelopment proposal requires a rezoning from R-3 Two-Family Residence to PUD. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) EXISTING CONSIDERATIONS: Site Area: 0.92 acres Current Land Use Guidance: RM – Medium Density Residential Current Zoning: R-3 Two-Family Residence Proposed Zoning: PUD-Planned Unit Development Current Use: Vacant; MnDOT R/W Surrounding Land Uses: North: Wayzata Blvd and I-394 East: Pennsylvania Ave, Commercial/service, South: single-family housing West: single-family housing PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS: Description The developer requests a preliminary and final plat to create a parcel out of existing right-of-way that is 0.92 acres in size known as “Arlington Row Apartments East.” The proposed plat meets the subdivision requirements for minimum lot size, shape, and dimension. Uses The proposed use on the plat includes multi-family residential. This use is permitted through a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Utility Easements The plat provides a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard and five-foot wide easements along the interior lot lines on the east and west side of the site. A subdivision variance: A subdivision variance is request to eliminate the drainage and utility easement on the south side of the lot adjacent to 13th Lane. The developer initially proposed a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the south property line adjacent to 13th Lane. It was determined by the Engineering Department that the south easement along 13th Lane is not needed. The existing right-of-way extends 15 feet behind the curb leaving ample room for future utilities and/or the proposed six foot sidewalk. The developer provided the following arguments to support the request for the subdivision variance: 1. The layout of the site has been designed to fit into the fabric of the neighborhood. Parking is proposed on the north side of the site with access away from the single-family homes and the building was designed to create a more pedestrian scaled environment by providing multiple ground level exterior entrances along 13th Lane. To make it more compatible with the look and feel of single-family homes street level entries and patios are also proposed along 13th Lane. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) 2. Granting the variance will not impair the ability to accommodate potential future utilities. There are additional options for utilities around the site, including under the sidewalk and in the boulevard at the reduced easement location. 13th Lane has an existing right-of-way of 50 feet and will not be expanded in the future. This right-of-way extends 15 feet behind the back of the curb leaving sufficient space for utilities if needed in the future and to add a six foot sidewalk as proposed by the developer. 3. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community or other properties in the area. 4. The variance for the reductions in the drainage and utility easements are not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff support the requested preliminary and final plat with variance based on the information provided above. The overall site design provides a pedestrian friendly development, including sidewalk connections to transit, boulevard trees, residential gardens and open space while providing the required easement in all other locations. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance at the public hearing held February 17, 2016. Park & Trail Dedication The proposed development is on property that was previously platted in 1950 into seven single family lots. It was subsequently taken by MnDOT for I-394 right-of-way. Park and trail dedication in the form of land or cash-in-lieu of land is required for the additional 20 units. No new park land is designated in this location in the Comprehensive Plan so cash-in lieu of land will be required in the following amounts: Park dedication $30,000; Trail dedication $4,500. The City is proposing to collect these fees prior to signing the final plat. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) considered staff’s recommendation of collecting cash-in-lieu of land at its February 17, 2016 meeting. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) concurred with staff’s recommendation of collecting cash-in-lieu of land. Tree Preservation There are five existing trees on site. Only one of these, an oak, is a significant tree. The developer will work with the City Forester during construction to try to preserve the oak; however due to its proximity to the proposed building this may not be feasible. In the event this tree cannot be saved staff has included it in the tree removal calculations. Thus, based on the removal of 5 trees the proposed development will require the installation of 48 caliper inches in replacement trees. The landscaping plan proposes to plant 68 caliper inches in new trees. The plan exceeds the City’s tree replacement requirements. PUD ANALYSIS: The purpose of a PUD District is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater flexibility in the development of land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The Arlington Row Apartments East proposal particularly addresses the following intentions of the PUD zoning district:  Promote higher standards of site and building design.  Utilize new technologies in building design.  Encourage a more creative and efficient use of land.  Promote environmental sustainability in the development of land, building construction and building operations.  Ensure integrated pedestrian facilities to and within a PUD district.  Provide for improved connections to mass transit facilities. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 5 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Building and Site Design Analysis: The PUD ordinance requires the City to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. Staff finds the plan meets this requirement. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. Staff finds this criteria will be met. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. This is a condition of approval. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The developer received a Metropolitan Council LCDA grant for the installation of solar power for lighting interior and exterior common areas as well as the installation of a geothermal cooling and heating system. Staff finds this criteria is met. The PUD zoning district allows a development such as is being proposed by Melrose Company. ZONING ANALYSIS: The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 6 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Zoning Compliance Table: Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Multiple-Family Residential per Council direction Multiple-Family Residential Yes Lot Area Min. of 2.0 acres, less with approval. 0.92 acres; City approved reduced size 2/2/2015 Yes Height None with PUD 36.5 feet Yes Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials Minimum of 74%. Yes Residential Density 30 units per acre in RM-Medium Density Land Use 29.3 units per acre Yes Floor Area Ratio None with PUD 0.70 Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.25 Yes Off-Street Parking Residential – 43(one per bedroom) Residential – 43 Yes Bicycle Parking Residential – 32(one per unit + 1 per 10 parking spaces) Residential – 51 Yes Open Area/DORA 4,796 sq. ft. (12% of gross lot area) 5,651sq. ft. (14% of gross lot area) Yes Landscaping See Landscaping section Yes Building Setbacks None with PUD, except 15 ft side yard abutting single family residential lot to the west. Varies, shortest setbacks: North/front property line 59.5 ft, south/front property line 10 ft, 18 ft from west side, 97 ft from east side; Yes Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Mechanical equipment will be within the building or through-wall units. Yes Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Provided along all streets and building frontages Yes Refuse handling Full screening required Refuse is screened by masonry wall in compatible material/style as primary buildings. Yes Transit service None required 9, 643, 649, 652, 672, 675, 705, 756 Yes Stormwater Management Required Underground detention system. Yes Uses Arlington Row Apartments East is a multi-family residential development with a total of 27 units in one three-story building. The proposed use is below the density maximum of the RM Land Use category and a rezoning to PUD permits the development plan as proposed. Rezoning to a PUD is specific to this development proposal dictating specific requirements of building dimensions and the site plan. If future redevelopment were to occur on the site a rezoning would be required at the discretion of the Council. The ordinance draft is attached to this report. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 7 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Architectural Design The development plans demonstrate a high quality image with design considerations demonstrating sensitivity to the surrounding uses and character. The building is three stories in height with a pitched roof to fit with the existing single-family homes in the area. Further attention was given to creating a more pedestrian scale environment by providing multiple entrances to the building from adjacent sidewalks and grade level entrances for several units; creating façade articulation to break up the mass of street facing walls; the generous use of glass to provide transparency and locating the parking lot toward Wayzata Blvd away from the single-family homes. The building exteriors include a generous use of glass, brick and stucco. Glass, stucco and brick are counted as Class I materials on all buildings. The City requires a minimum of 60% Class I material coverage on each façade visible from off-site. The minimum Class I material coverage is 74%, which is on the south elevation. The Class I material coverage of the facade facing Wayzata Boulevard is 80%, while the west and east elevations provide 82% Class I material coverage. The reminder of the elevations consist of fibercement lap siding or hardiboard ranging from 18-26% on each elevation. The buildings exceed City Code architectural requirements. Height The current R-3 district zoning allow 3 stories or 35 feet in height. The PUD district has the flexibility to allow taller buildings and smaller setbacks, as the City Council deems appropriate. In order to fit in with the existing fabric of the single family homes, pitched roofs are proposed resulting in a building height of 36.5 feet. In addition, both ends and the center of the south elevation (facing the single family residential on 13th Lane) were stepped down to two stories. Staff supports the added 1.5 feet in height as it allows a design that is in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Setbacks The plan provides setbacks of 59.5 feet at the north property line, 18 feet from the west property line, 10 feet on the south side and 97 feet from the east property line. In a PUD, building may be set up to the property line. However, if the side property line is adjacent to a single family residential property the setback must be a minimum of 15 feet. The proposed plan meets this requirement with an 18 foot setback on the west side. Density The current zoning of R-3 Two-Family Residence and Comprehensive Plan designation of RM – Medium Density Residential allows densities of 6-30 units per acre. With the PUD zoning, the density may be increased further. The proposed density is 29.3 units per acre. The plan meets the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. Parking and Access Parking is provided in a surface lot that is accessed from Wayzata Boulevard. The City requires one space per bedroom, for a total of 43 spaces. The applicant is providing 43 spaces on site which meets City requirements. The applicant is also providing secured bike storage in the building for 25 bikes and spaces for 26 bikes in racks adjacent to the building. The City’s bicycle parking requirements are exceeded. Traffic Study A traffic study was completed by SRF Consulting as part of the Arlington Row-West development proposal. A copy is attached. The traffic study included an analysis of how the proposed development may impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area and the Level of Service City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 8 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) (LOS) and delay at the following intersections: Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue, Wayzata Boulevard/Pennsylvania Avenue, and Texas Avenue/13th Lane/Westwood Hills Drive. The traffic study considered the previously approved development on Texas Ave-Arlington Row-West to include 34 units, and the currently proposed Arlington Row-East to include 30 units (3 more than is actually proposed). The study results indicate that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on traffic compared to the existing conditions. The level of service (LOS) for each of the studied intersections is not projected to change and the number of vehicle trips is projected to increase over existing conditions as follows: 32 total a.m. peak period, 40 p.m. peak period and 426 average daily trips. The Wayzata Boulevard/Pennsylvania Avenue intersection currently operates at an overall LOS A. During both the a.m. and p.m. peak period there is an average delay of 12.5 seconds. The LOS and delay is not projected to change due to the proposed development at this intersection. The Wayzata Blvd/Texas Avenue intersection (adjacent to Arlington Row-West) currently operates at an overall LOS B, with northbound Texas Avenue currently operating at a LOS E during the p.m. peak period with an average delay of 40 seconds. The LOS at this intersection is not project to change due to the proposed development, but the delay could increase to an average of 46 seconds during the p.m. peak period. SRF has stated that “side-street delays of this magnitude are common and do not typically warrant mitigation.” As part of the City’s Connect the Park! Program, the City Council approved plans to prohibit on- street parking on Texas Avenue adjacent to the Arlington Row West site and add a right turn lane on northbound Texas Avenue. The removal of on-street parking should improve site lines and the right turn lane should reduce the delay experienced by those making right turns onto eastbound Wayzata Blvd. The turn lane will be provided in spring 2016. Service Areas The development plans show that trash/recycling service is located in the northwest corner, in the parking lot. This area will be fully screened from off-site by a masonry wall that matches the material of the primary buildings. Landscaping The landscape plan indicates five trees will be removed and 29 new trees and 169 shrubs will be installed. This plan meets the City’s minimum landscaping requirements of 27 trees and 169 shrubs. The project also exceeds the City’s minimum tree replacement calculations by providing 68 caliper inches of trees when 48 caliper inches are required. As stated previously, the developer will try to save an existing oak. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) The proposed development plans illustrate an integration of landscaping and DORA elements. The elements provided to meet the City’s DORA requirements include internal pedestrian connections, outdoor patios, raingardens and an open area as well as garden plots for apartment residents to use. The plan meets the City’s minimum 12% DORA requirement, providing 14% of the lot area. Signage A sign plan was not submitted for review. Signs will require permits and must comply with the sign rules for an R-4 zoning district. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 9 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Utilities All utilities servicing the site will be placed underground. Utility service structures, such as a generator and transformer, will be screened completely from off-site with materials consistent with main building façade or placed within the building. The applicant has received a grant for the use of a geothermal system for heating/cooling which will be incorporated into the building utilities design. PUBLIC INPUT: A neighborhood meeting was held February 9, 2016 on the proposed development. The primary concern expressed at the meeting related to the fear of increased traffic and parking along 13th Lane. Other concerns included the height and scale of the building, fit with the neighborhood and potential impacts due to the addition of rental housing in the area such as a decline in property values. Concern was also expressed regarding parking on both sides of 13th Lane as it is a narrow street. Parking is currently permitted on both sides of the road. Staff has worked with Engineering and the developer on this issue and has developed a potential course of action for addressing parking on 13th Lane. No action will be taken until the development has been completed. After which, if it is determined that parking becomes a problem a couple options will be considered including limiting parking to one side of the street and permit parking. Parking on one side of the street will likely be evaluated first as staff does not believe that permit parking is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat, with the subdivision variance and approval of the preliminary and final PUD. ATTACHMENTS:  Existing and Proposed Zoning Map  Plat Resolution  PUD Ordinance  Traffic Study  Title Sheet  Rendering North and South  Final Plat  Preliminary Plat  Architectural Site Plan  Site Plan  Grading Plan  Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  Landscape Plan  Tree Inventory Plan  Floor Plans  Exterior Elevations  Planning Commission Minutes City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 10 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 11 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS EAST FOR PROPERTY ON THE 7700 BLOCK OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD BETWEEN RHODE ISLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Melrose Company has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat for land on the 7700 block of Wayzata Boulevard in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. A variance is approved from the subdivision ordinance for the elimination of the drainage and utility easement, along the southern property line, from the required ten feet, required by City Code, Section 26-154 3. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 4. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on “Exhibit A”. Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat with variance of Arlington Row Apartments East is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions: a. The final plat shall be consistent with the City Council resolution, Official Exhibits, Planning Development Agreement and City Code. b. The on-site underground storm water management system shall be privately owned and privately maintained. An agreement providing access to the system shall be provided to the City for emergency clean-out and inspection purposes when warranted. c. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 12 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) d. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: i. Park dedication fees totaling $30,000 and trail dedication fees totaling $4,500 shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park. ii. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $6,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure the following: a) A signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. b) Iron monuments are installed marking the lot corners iii. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum: a) The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks and boulevards, utility work, and street maintenance and repair and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. b) The installation of private improvements including, but not limited to: landscaping, a privately owned and privately maintained underground storm water management system and a maintenance agreement for said storm water management system. c) A performance guarantee for 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements, placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iv. A public easement for the sidewalk along the interior lot line on the west side of the lot shall be granted to the City. Said easement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and said easement shall be executed. v. The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. e. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, excluding demolition, the following conditions shall be met: i. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. ii. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner. iii. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. iv. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. v. All necessary permits must be obtained. vi. Utilities easements must be agreed upon by all appropriate utility companies. vii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (sidewalks, boulevards, landscaping, etc.) and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. f. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner, who is the applicant herein. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 13 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 Thomas Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 14 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) EXHIBIT A ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS EAST LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 2, distant 112.56 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 2, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 3, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 4, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 4, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 5, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 5, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 5, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 6, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 6, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 6, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 7, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 7, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 7, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 8, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 8, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 8, distant 116.13 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. (to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS WEST) City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 15 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) ORDINANCE NO. ____-16 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 5 AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE 7700 BLOCK OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD BETWEEN RHODE ISLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 16-02-S and 16-03-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as RM-Medium Density Residential. Sec. 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from R-3 Two-Family Residence to PUD 5. Lot 1, Block 1, Arlington Row Apartments East; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way. Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 5. (a) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. T1.1 – Title Sheet 2. AS1.3 – Architectural Site Plan 3. Sheet 1 - Survey 4. C1-1 – Existing Conditions/Survey 5. C1-2 – Preliminary Plat (existing conditions) 6. C1-3 – Preliminary Plat 7. C2-1 – Site Plan 8. C3-1 – Grading Plan 9. C3-2 – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 10. C4-1 – Sanitary & Watermain 11. C4-2 – Storm Sewer 12. C8-1 – Details 13. C8-2 – City Details 14. L1-1 – Landscape Plan 15. L2-1 – Tree Inventory Plan City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 16 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) 16. A1.0 – First & Second Level Floor Plans 17. A1.1 – Level 3 Floor & Roof Plan 18. A3.0 – Exterior Elevations 19. A3.4 – Exterior Elevations 20. Site Lighting Photometric Plan 21. Final Plat 22. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit The site shall also conform to the following requirements: (1) A total of forty three (43) off-street parking spaces shall be provided in a surface lot. (2) The maximum building height shall be 36.5 feet and three stories. (3) A minimum of 12 percent of the lot shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area. (b) Permitted Uses (1) Multiple-family dwelling. (2) Parks/open space. (c) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Private garages and parking lots. (2) Private swimming pool in conformance with section 36-73. (3) Service and retail facilities intended for use of residents not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the development. (4) Property management or rental office provided that it does not occupy more than ten percent of the gross floor area. (5) Gardening and other horticultural uses. (6) Solar panels as regulated by this Chapter. (7) Decorative landscape features including but not limited to fountains, arbors pools and pergolas (8) Home occupations complying with all of the following conditions: a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 17 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right-of way. c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution, or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. e. No light or vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. f. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. g. No more than one nonilluminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code. (9) No outdoor uses or storage allowed. (d) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking and screening requirements. (2) All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view by a masonry wall no taller than six feet in height and constructed out of a material compatible with the principal buildings. (3) Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with this Chapter and the sign area and height regulations for the R-4 Multiple-Family Residence zoning district. Sec. 5. The contents of Planning Case File 16-02-S and 16-03-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 6. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Page 18 Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD (First Reading) Public Hearing February 17,2016 First Reading March 21, 2016 Second Reading April 4, 2016 Date of Publication April 14, 2016 Date Ordinance takes effect April 29, 2016 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2016 Thomas Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Memorandum SRF No. 0158985 To: Ryan P. Kelley, CNU-A, Associate Planner City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate Tom Sachi, EIT, Engineer Date: September 15, 2015 Subject: Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the two Arlington Row Apartment developments located along Wayzata Boulevard in St. Louis Park, MN (see Figure 1: Project Location). One development is located in the southwest quadrant of the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection, while the other development is located along Wayzata Boulevard between Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. The main objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate development traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network, including the proposed access and circulation, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed developments. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the developments. The evaluation of existing conditions includes turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Peak hour turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected by SRF during the week of August 17, 2015 at the following study intersections: x Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue x Wayzata Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue x Texas Avenue and 13th Lane/Westwood Hills Road At the Texas Avenue and 13th Lane/Westwood Hills Road intersection, a 15-minute pulse count was conducted in order to establish general travel patterns and magnitude. Additional driveway pulse counts were completed along Wayzata Boulevard within the immediate study area. ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 19                              !"#$%&              !"City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 20 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Historical and existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by the City of St. Louis Park. Based on discussion with City staff, concerns were expressed that current traffic volumes may be impacted by area roadway construction, particularly along I-394 and TH 100. To address this concern, a daily traffic volume comparison between historical (year 2013) and current (year 2015) volumes was completed. The current traffic volumes were collected by City staff the weeks of August 10 and August 17. However, it should be noted that the I-394 construction was completed on August 14, 2014. Therefore the comparison focused on the historical year 2013 and the non- construction data from the week of August 17. Results of the comparison indicate that the existing traffic volumes have returned to near non-construction conditions and are consistent with the historical daily traffic volumes with the study area. Although TH 100 construction impacts continue to impact north/south corridors within St Louis Park, the impact to the study area appears to be minimal. It should be noted that school was not in session at the time of these traffic counts. The middle school hours of operation are from 7:30 a.m. to 2:15 p.m., which are outside of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours within the study area. Although the school a.m. peak hour is near the a.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadway, the a.m. peak hour volumes at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection are approximately 25 percent lower than the p.m. peak hour volumes. Therefore, the school does not have a significant impact to traffic operations within the study area. A cursory review of the crash data in the area for years 2010 through 2014 indicate that only one crash has occurred within the study area over the previous five years. Based on the minimal amount of reported crashes the study area does not appear to have a crash issue. Crash data was obtained from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). In addition to the intersection turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts, observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). All study roadways are two-lane undivided roadways with 30 mile per hour (mph) posted speed limits. All study intersections are side-street stop controlled. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that minimal pedestrians and bicyclist activity was observed at the study intersections. Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours to establish baseline conditions to which future traffic operations can be compared. The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic (V8). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Page 3 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 21                               ! ! !"#$                                 !  !"# !"# $%&!!'"(')!!'*)$$%&"  $'  $   !#!(  ) * +               +                              City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 22 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Table 1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ” ” B !-  !-  C !-  !-  D !-  !-  E !-  !-  F ! ! For side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However during the p.m. peak hour, northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection experience approximately 40 seconds of delay on average accessing Wayzata Boulevard, which corresponds to LOS E. This led to queues extending approximately 140 feet (five to six vehicles), which were confirmed based on field observations. This delay is primarily for northbound left-turning vehicles and results from limited gaps in the traffic flow along Wayzata Boulevard. Northbound right-turning vehicles were observed utilizing the shoulder area to avoid waiting behind left-turning vehicles. No other significant operation issues were identified. Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue() A/B  sec. A/EE VHF Wayzata Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue() A/B  sec. A/B  sec. 7H[DV$YHQXHDQGWK/DQH:HVWZRRG+LOOV5RDG() A/B  sec. A/B  sec.  Indicates an unsignalized LQWHUVHFWLRQZLWKVLGH-VWUHHWVWRSFRQWUROZKHUHWKHRYHUDOO/26LVVKRZQIROORZHGE\WKHZRUVW DSSURDFK/267KHGHOD\VKRZQUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUVWVLGH-VWUHHWDSSURDFKGHOD\ Page 5 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 23 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Proposed Development The proposed Arlington Row apartment developments (West and East), shown in Figures 3A and 3B, are located in the southwest quadrant of the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection and along Wayzata Boulevard between Texas Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue, respectively. The West apartment development is expected to have 34 dwelling units and the East apartment development is expected to have 30 dwelling units. Access to the apartments is proposed at the following locations: x West Apartments: Texas Avenue, 125 feet south of Wayzata Boulevard x East Apartments: Wayzata Boulevard, 500 feet west of Pennsylvania Avenue Further discussion regarding site access is documented later in this study. Year 2017 Conditions To identify potential impacts associated with the proposed apartment developments, traffic forecasts for year 2017 conditions (i.e. one year after opening) were reviewed. The year 2017 conditions take into account general area background growth and traffic generated by the two proposed developments. The following sections provide details on the background traffic forecasts, estimated trip generation, and intersection capacity analysis for year 2017 conditions. Background Traffic Growth To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2017 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is consistent with historical growth rates in the study area and other traffic studies completed in St. Louis Park. Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed apartment developments, trip generation estimates for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours as well as a daily basis were developed. These trip generation estimates, shown in Table 3, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. Table 3 Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out West Apartments (220) 'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV 3   7 226 East Apartments (220) 'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV 3   7  TTotal PProposed Development TTrips 66 226 226  4426 Page 6 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 24                 !"#               !"City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 25                 !"#$          !"  City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 26 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Results of the trip generation estimates indicate the two proposed apartment developments are expected to generate a total of approximately 32 a.m. peak hour, 40 p.m. peak hour, and 426 daily trips. The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns and engineering judgment. The resultant year 2017 traffic forecasts, which include general background growth and trips generated by the proposed apartment developments, are shown in Figure 5. Year 2017 Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine if the existing roadway network can accommodate the year 2017 traffic forecasts, a detailed intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software. In addition to the study intersections, both apartment development driveways were analyzed to identify any site access issues. Results of the year 2017 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections and proposed site access locations are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing roadway geometry and traffic control. It should be noted that the minor delay issues during the p.m. peak hour for northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection are expected to continue. However, the addition of the proposed apartment developments does not significantly impact area traffic operations. Side-street delays of this magnitude are common and do not typically warrant mitigation. In other words, no change in traffic control (i.e. all-way stop control or signalization) is needed under either existing or future year 2017 conditions. No other delay or queuing issues are expected. Table 4 Year 2017 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue() A/B  sec. B/EE 4466 ssec. Wayzata Boulevard and Pennsylvania Avenue() A/B  sec. A/B  sec. 7H[DV$YHQXHDQGWK/DQH:HVWZRRG+LOOV5RDG() A/B  sec. A/B  sec. Texas Avenue and West $SDUWPHQW'ULYHZD\() A/B  sec. A/B  sec. Wayzata Boulevard and East $SDUWPHQW'ULYHZD\() A/B  sec. A/B  sec.  Indicates an unsignalized LQWHUVHFWLRQZLWKVLGH-VWUHHWVWRSFRQWUROZKHUHWKHRYHUDOO/26LVVKRZQIROORZHGE\WKHZRUVW DSSURDFK/267KHGHOD\VKRZQUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUVWVLGH-VWUHHWDSSURDFKGHOD\ Page 9 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 27                                 !"#"$"%$      !     !"  City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 28                               ! ! !"#$                        !  " #  $   !"# !"# $%&  '#!()*+)!!+,)$$%&"  $'  $   !#!(  ) *                     -                                      -                                 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 29 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Site Plan/Access Review A review of the proposed site plans was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to site access, circulation, and parking. The follow improvements are offered for consideration. x West Development: Ensure garbage truck maneuverability or modify the dumpster location. x West Development: Align site access directly across from The Maids Home Services driveway to reduce potential conflicts. x East Development: Provide adequate maneuverability for motorists to access all parking spaces, including the parallel spaces. x East Development: Install signage to ensure all parallel parking occurs in the same direction. x East Development: Consider revising the site plan to add a new access along Wayzata Boulevard to the east and convert operations to one-way with angled parking. Site plan recommendations for the West and East developments are shown in Figures 6A and 6B, respectively. Page 12 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 30                 !"# "$! "%$               !"     # ! $ $  %   #   !      City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 31               !"#$               !" # $ #%         &         '    City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 32 Ryan P. Kelley September 15, 2015 City of St. Louis Park Arlington Row Apartments West and East Traffic Study Summary and Conclusions The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: x Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. o During the p.m. peak hour, northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection experience approximately 40 seconds of delay on average accessing Wayzata Boulevard, which corresponds to LOS E. x The West apartment development is expected to have 34 dwelling units and the East apartment development is expected to have 30 dwelling units. x The proposed developments are expected to generate a total of approximately 32 a.m. peak hour, 40 p.m. peak hour, and 426 daily trips. x Results of the year 2017 (i.e. one year after opening) intersection capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. o The minor delay issue during the p.m. peak hour for northbound vehicles at the Wayzata Boulevard/Texas Avenue intersection are expected to continue. x The addition of the proposed apartment developments does not significantly impact area traffic operations. No change in traffic control (i.e. all-way stop control or signalization) is needed under either existing or future year 2017 conditions. x The follow site plan improvements are offered for consideration. o West Development: Ensure garbage truck maneuverability or modify the dumpster location. o West Development: Align site access directly across from The Maids Home Services driveway to reduce potential conflicts. o East Development: Provide adequate maneuverability for motorists to access all parking spaces, including the parallel spaces. o East Development: Install signage to ensure all parallel parking occurs in the same direction. o East Development: Consider revising the site plan to add a new access along Wayzata Boulevard to the east and convert operations to one-way with angled parking. H:\Projects\8985\TS\Report\8985_FINAL_ArlingtonRowApartmentsTrafficStudy_150915.docx Page 15 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 33 XXX XX'-X" EL = T.O. XXX EL = XX'-X" SECTION AND ELEVATION REF INTERIOR ELEVATION REF DETAIL REF WALL TYPE (SEE SHEET A10.1) WINDOW TYPE (SEE SHEET A11.2) ELEVATION REF SPOT ELEVATION REF FLOOR FINISH TRANSITION REF X X X AX.X X X X X X X X X X EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTE REF ROOM NAME AND NUMBER DOOR NUMBER SECTION KEYNOTE REF REVISION NUMBER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FIRE EXTINGUISHER - WALL MOUNTED ROOM X XXX XX XX elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY P L AN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **1/15/2016 9:48:47 AMT1.1 TITLE SHEET 215515 M TE DS ARLINGTON ROW ARLINGTON ROW ST. LO UIS PARK, M N - 1/15/2016 PROJECT TEAM SYMBOLS LEGEND PROJECT LOCATION SHEET INDEX ARLINGTON ROW Owner/Developer:Melrose Company Robert Cunningham Ph: 612.963.9401 Architect:Elness Swenson Graham Architects Inc. 500 Washington Ave. South, Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Ph: 612-339-5508 Fx: 612-339-5382 Landscape:Loucks Accociates 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Ph: 763.424.5505 / 6756 Fx: 763.424.5822 Contractor:T.B.D. Civil:Loucks Accociates 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Ph: 763.424.5505 / 6756 Fx: 763.424.5822 Mechanical,T.B.D. Electrical, Plumbing Engineers: Structural Engineer:T.B.D. VicinitySite Location SITE SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME PUD / COMP PLAN SUBMISSION - TEXAS SITEPUD / PLAN SUBMISSION - 13TH SITEGENERAL INFORMATION T1.1 TITLE SHEET ● ● T1.2 ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS ARCHITECTURAL SITE AS1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - OVERALL ● A AS1.2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SITE A - "TEXAS" ● B AS1.3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SITE B - "13TH LANE"● AS2.1 REFERENCE IMAGES ● CODE B AC1.1 ARCHITECTURAL CODE PLAN B AC1.2 ARCHITECTURAL CODE PLAN CIVIL A C0.0 ALTA / ACSM ● B C0.0 ALTA SURVEY ● A C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ● B C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ● A C1.2 PRELIMINARY PLAT ● B C1.2 PRELIMINARY PLAT ● A C1.3 PRELIMINARY PLAT B C1.3 PRELIMINARY PLAT ● A C2.1 SITE PLAN ● B C2.1 SITE PLAN ● A C3.1 GRADING PLAN ● B C3.1 GRADING PLAN ● A C3.2 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ● B C3.2 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ● B C3.3 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ● B C3.4 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ● A C4.1 SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN PLAN ● B C4.1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN ● A C4.2 STORM SEWER ● B C4.2 STORM SEWER ● A C8.1 DETAILS ● B C8.1 DETAILS ● A C8.2 CITY DETAILS ● B C8.2 CITY DETAILS ● LANDSCAPE A L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ● B L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ● A L2.1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN ● B L2.1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN ● ARCHITECTURAL B A1.0 FLOOR PLAN ● B A1.1 FLOOR PLAN ● B A1.2 FLOOR PLAN B A1.4 FLOOR PLAN B A1.5 FLOOR PLAN B A1.6 FLOOR PLAN B A1.7 FLOOR PLAN B A1.8 FLOOR PLAN B A3.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL ● B A3.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● B A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS B A5.1 WALL SECTIONS B A8.6 1/4" UNIT PLANS & ENLARGED PLANS DETAILS B A8.7 1/4" UNIT PLANS & ENLARGED PLANS DETAILS B A8.8 1/4" UNIT PLANS & ENLARGED PLANS DETAILS B A8.9 1/4" UNIT PLANS & ENLARGED PLANS DETAILS B A8.10 1/4" UNIT PLANS & ENLARGED PLANS DETAILS B A11.1 OPENING SCHEDULES AND TYPES/DETAILS A11.3 ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE ELECTRICAL B E0.1 EXTERIOR LIGHTING ● A E0.2 EXTERIOR LIGHTING ● SITETEXAS SITE (SITE A) 13TH SITE (SITE B) No.Des c ription Date PUD / COM P - 2/25/2016PUD / PLAN SUBMISSION - 13TH SITE● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●2/25/16Owner/Developer:Melrose Company Robert Cunningham Ph: 612.963.9401 Architect:Elness Swenson Graham Architects Inc. 500 Washington Ave. South, Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Ph: 612-339-5508 Fx: 612-339-5382 Landscape:Loucks Associates 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Ph: 763.424.5505 / 6756 Fx: 763.424.5822 Contractor: Civil:Loucks Associates 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Ph: 763.424.5505 / 6756 Fx: 763.424.5822 Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Engineers: Structural Engineer: Steen Engineering 5430 Douglas Drive North Minneapolis MN 55429 Ph: 763.585.6742 Ericksen Roed & Associates 2550 University Ave W Suite 201-S Saint Paul, MN 55114 Ph. 651.251.7570 Rochon Corporation 3650 Annapolis Lane North Suite 101 Plymouth MN 55447 Ph. 763.559.9393 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 34 Melrose Company LLCARLINGTON ROWSt Louis Park MNNeighborhood Meeting2016 February 8Bird’s Eye ViewLOOKING NORTHCity Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 35 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUDPage 36 SCALE IN FEET 0 30 N LOUCKS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS : That Arlington Row, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 2, distant 112.56 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 2, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 3, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 3, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 4, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 4, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 5, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 5, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 5, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 6, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 6, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 6, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 7, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 7, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 7, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 8, Block 1, "Penn-Zayta", lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 8, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 8, distant 116.13 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS EAST, and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the easements for drainage and utility purposes as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said Arlington Row, LLC has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this ______ day of ____________________, 201_____. ARLINGTON ROW, LLC _________________________________________ (Signature) _________________________________________ (Title) State of ______________ County of ______________ This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________, 201_____ by _____________________, _________________________ of Arlington Row, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. _________________________________________ (Signature) _________________________________________ (Printed Name) Notary Public ____________________ County, _______________ My Commission Expires January 31, 20_____ SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION I, Paul J. McGinley do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this ______ day of __________________, 201____ __________________________________ Paul J. McGinley, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 16099 State of Minnesota County of Hennepin This instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________________, 201_____ by Paul J. McGinley, a Licensed Land Surveyor. _________________________________________ (Signature) _________________________________________ (Printed Name) Notary Public ____________________ County, Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31, 202____ ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA This plat of ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS EAST was approved and accepted by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of _________________, 201_____. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minn. Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA By __________________________________, Mayor By______________________________, Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES , Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 201_____ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this ________ day of ____________________, 201_____. Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor By ________________________________, Deputy SURVEY DIVISION , Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this ________ day of ______________________, 201_____. Chris F. Mavis, Hennepin County Surveyor By _________________________________ REGISTRAR OF TITLES , Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of ARLINGTON ROW APARTMENTS EAST was filed in this office this ________ day of _____________________, 201_____, at ________o'clock __M. Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles By ________________________________ Deputy City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 37 LOUCKS W:\2015\15186\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S15186-MasterPlotted: 02 /24 / 2016 9:20 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 2, distant 112.56 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 2, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 3, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 4, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 4, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 5, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 5, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 5, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 6, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 6, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 6, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 7, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County , Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 7, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 7, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 8, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 8, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 8, distant 116.13 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. DATE OF PREPARATION: July 2015 BENCHMARK: STAMPED SURVEY DISC MARKED 2789AV LOCATED IN SE CORNER OF WINNETKA AVE BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 394. ELEVATION = 921.97 FEET (NGVD29) EXISTING ZONING: Zone (R-3) Two-Family Residential AREAS: Proposed Lot 1 = 39,977 +/- Sq.Ft. or 0.92 +/- Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0332E, effective date of September 2, 2004. PRELIMINARY PLAT (Existing Conditions) C1-2 Paul J. McGinley - PLS License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Field Crew Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 16099 7/9/15 15-186A RLL SFM RLL DP SHEET INDEX SCALE IN FEET 0 30 N City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 38 LOUCKS W:\2015\15186\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S15186-MasterPlotted: 02 /25 / 2016 12:21 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 2, distant 112.56 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 2, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 3, distant 113.07 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 3, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 4, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 4, distant 113.58 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 4, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 5, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 5, distant 114.09 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 5, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 6, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 6, distant 114.60 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 6, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 7, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County , Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 7, distant 115.11 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 7, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. AND That part of Lot 8, Block 1, Penn-Zayta, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered, lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 8, distant 115.62 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence easterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 8, distant 116.13 feet northerly of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. DATE OF PREPARATION: July 2015 BENCHMARK: STAMPED SURVEY DISC MARKED 2789AV LOCATED IN SE CORNER OF WINNETKA AVE BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 394. ELEVATION = 921.97 FEET (NGVD29) EXISTING ZONING: Zone (R-3) Two-Family Residential AREAS: Proposed Lot 1 = 39,977 +/- Sq.Ft. or 0.92 +/- Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0332E, effective date of September 2, 2004. PRELIMINARY PLAT (Proposed Improvements) C1-3 Paul J. McGinley - PLS License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Field Crew Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 16099 7/9/15 15-186A RLL SFM RLL DP SHEET INDEX SCALE IN FEET 0 30 N City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 39 S. FRONTAGE RD W 13TH LN PENNSYLVANIA AVE SW 13TH LN 13 1/2 STTEXAS AVE S394 13TH LANE SITE B TEXAS AVE SITE - A AS1.2 1 PLAN AS1.3 1 PLAN 14 STALLS (ON STREET)10 STALLS (ON STREET)55' - 3 1/4"45' - 3 1/4"24' - 0"18' - 0"15 902.8 1" = 50'-0"AS1.1 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I h ereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O R I GINAL ISSUE: R E V ISIO NS KEY P L AN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **1/14/2016 2:52:05 PMA S 1 .1 A R C HITECTURAL SITE PLAN - O VERALL 2 1 5 515 A u t hor C h e cker 0 4 /07/15 A R L INGTON ROW A R L INGTON ROW S T . LO UIS PARK, M N - 1 /15/2016 No.De s c ription Date PUD / COM P - 2/25/2016 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 40 112' - 6 1/4"349' - 7 1/4" TRUE NORTH PARKING COUNT REQUIRED 1/BEDROOM 0 STREET 2 ACCESSIBLE 41 STANDARD TOTAL 43 STALLS 116' - 1 1/2"18' - 6"87' - 5 1/2"17' - 0"122' - 0 1/2" BIKE RACKS TREES / LANDSCAPING SHOWN FOR REF SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TO LAYOUT AND SPECIES RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS AND LANDSCAPING - SEE LANDSCAPE DESIGN TRASH / RECYCLE BIKE RACKS (4) MASONRY WALLS RESIDENTE ACCESS GATE BIKE RACKS (6)BACK OF CURB6' - 0" FROM6' - 0" SIDEWALKENTRY VESTIBULEMAIL ADJACENT PROPERTIES FENCE TO REMAIN TIE NEW SIDE WALK INTO EXISTING SIDEWALKS AS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT SITE BOUNDRY OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA 'FRONT PORCH' WITH OPEN TRELLIS ABOVE 'BACK PORCH' WITH CANOPY ABOVE ENTRY ENTRY ADJACENT PROPERTY CURB CUT w/ ACCESSIBLE ACCESS RAMP MODIFY EXISTING CURB CUT w/ ACCESSIBLE ACCESS RAMP CURB CUT w/ ACCESSIBLE ACCESS RAMP EXISTING UTILITY LINE - VERIFY ADJACENT PROPERTIES FENCE TO REMAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY RETAINING WALL ALONG NORTH BOUNDARY ILLUMINATED PROPERTY SIGNAGE TBD MOUNTED TO TOP AND/OR FACE OF RETAININGS WALL INFILL ALL EXISTING CURB CUTS NOT USED LINK STORM WATER RETENTION BELOW GRADE SEE CIVIL BIKESTORAGE(25)10' - 0" BLDG SETBACK5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0" +/- 23' - 9 1/2"50' - 0" ROW - SEE CIVILSERVICE ACCESS BIKE RACKS (6) BIKE RACKS (4) BIKE PARKING COUNT REQURIED 1/DWELLING UNIT - 27 1/10 PARKING STALLS - 4 Total Required - 31 PROVIDED 25 INTERIOR 26 EXTERIOR / SITE TOTAL 51 STALLS 8' - 6" 0" B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B19 B20 B21 B23 B40 B39 B38 B37 B36 B35 B15 B16 B17 B18 B34B41B42B43 B27 B28 B29 B30 B31 B32 B33B26B25B24 RETAINING WALL ALONG EAST BOUNDARY SEE CIVIL GRADING FOR EXTENT AND HEIGHTS 59' - 6"24' - 0"101' - 6" B22 PROPERTY LINE(S) COLLECTION TRUCK STOP PLANTER WITH BUILDING ADDRESS / SIGN SLOPESLOPECOMMUNITY ROOM18' - 0"SIDEWALK 10' - 0" EASEMENTTYPE A UNIT - REF BUILDING PLANS FOR INTERIOR LAYOUT25' - 0 1/2"GENERAL NOTES: •SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR UTILITY EXISTING LOCATION •INDOOR BIKE PARKING IS LOCATED IN EASTERN BUILDING WING AND WILL BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS •5 SPACES (10% OF REQUIRED) TO BE SIGNED FOR VISITOR PARKING •12% (4,796 SF) OF SITE TO BE 'DESIGNED OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA' DORA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR CALCULATION - 5690SF PROPOSED elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I h ereby certify that this plan, specification, or r e p o r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # D ate PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O R I GINAL ISSUE: R E V ISIO NS KEY P L AN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **2/25/2016 4:54:52 PMA S 1 .3 A R C HITECTURAL SITE PLAN - S ITE B - "13TH LANE" 2 1 5 515 M E E S G A R L INGTON ROW A R L INGTON ROW S T . LO UIS PARK, M N P U D / COM P - 2 /2 5/2016 B 1/16" = 1'-0"AS1.3 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN PARKING COUNT - 13TH SITE 13TH Site COMPACT 8'6" X 16'0"2 A ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL 2 S STANDARD 8'6" X 18'0" 39 43 UNIT MATRIX - SITE B - 13TH LANE Count Unit Type Name SF Unit (Paint to Paint) Gross Unit Rentable (Per Unit) Total Gross Unit Rentable (=Rentable * Count) Bed rooms Total Beds 3 LEVEL 1 1 1A 2 BED 797 SF 882 SF 882 SF 2 2 1 1A 2 BED 797 SF 882 SF 882 SF 2 2 1 1Aa 2 BED 910 SF 979 SF 979 SF 2 2 1 1Aa 2 BED 910 SF 979 SF 979 SF 2 2 1 1Ab 2 BED 741 SF 811 SF 811 SF 2 2 2 1B 2 BED (2 STORY) 956 SF 1,098 SF 2,196 SF 2 4 2 1Ba 2 BED (2 STORY) 950 SF 1,091 SF 2,182 SF 2 4 3 1C 1 BED 545 SF 545 SF 1,636 SF 1 3 12 10,547 SF 21 LEVEL 2 1 2A 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,000 SF 1,123 SF 1,123 SF 2 2 2 2A 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,000 SF 1,123 SF 2,246 SF 2 4 2 2B 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,029 SF 1,168 SF 2,336 SF 2 4 2 2Ba 2 BED (2 STORY) 1,029 SF 1,168 SF 2,336 SF 2 4 6 2C 1 BED (2 STORY) 671 SF 753 SF 4,518 SF 1 6 1 2Ca 1 BED (2 STORY) 763 SF 851 SF 851 SF 1 1 1 2Ca 1 BED (2 STORY) 763 SF 851 SF 851 SF 1 1 15 14,261 SF 22 27 24,808 SF 43 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS - 27 BUILDING FOOTPRINT(S) - 10,150 SF BUILDING GROSS SF - 28,088 SF SITE AREA - .92 ACRE (39967SF) DENSITY - 29.3 UNITS / ACRE 0 1 68 3 2 N o .De s c ription Date PLAN NORTH 1/16" = 1'-0"AS1.3 2 13TH SITE ELEVATION City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 41 (25) INTERIOR BIKE STORAGE (4) BIKE STALLS (6) BIKE STALLS (6) BIKE STALLS (4) BIKE STALLS (6) BIKE STALLS TRASH & RECYCLE ENCLOSURE W/CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH MASONRY WALLS TO MATCH BUILDING. SEE ARCHITECTURAL MODULAR RETAINING WALL WITH 36" FENCE FOR SCREENING 2 STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP. 2 STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL (8) CONCRETE PATIOS WITH SCREEN WALL. SEE ARCHITECTURAL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 18.0 24.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 22.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 16.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 6.0 6.0 8.5 (2) COMPACT STALLS 8.5'x16' REMOVE (7) EXISTING CONCRETE APRONS. REPLACE WITH CONCRETE CURB TO MATCH CURB IN 13TH LANE CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP. OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL AREA RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY GARDEN SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN1 STAIR 2 STAIRS 2 STAIRS (1) COMPACT STALL 8.5'x16' COMPACT STALL SIGN COMPACT STALL SIGN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SIGN 3.7 1 STAIRS ADA COMPLIANT SIDEWALK AT 5% OR LESS WITH MODULAR WALL ON WEST SIDE AND BACK OF CURB EXPOSED ON EAST SIDE. PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP 59.557.2 3.3 1.3 3.3 13.3 BUILDING SETBACK 6' TALL CEDAR FENCE ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL 6' TALL CEDAR FENCE NO PARKING STRIPING FOR LOADING ZONE NO PARKING LOADING ZONE SIGN NO PARKING LOADING ZONE SIGN 18.5 10.0 STOP SIGN CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OF VAULT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION RETAINING WALL LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\EAST SITE\C2-1 SITE PLANPlotted: 02 /24 / 2016 9:25 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN N  WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.MINIMUM SETBACKS: FRONT BUILDING SETBACK = 25 FT SIDE BUILDING SETBACK = 10 FT. REAR BUILDING SETBACK = 0 FT. 2.ZONING EXISTING ZONING =R-3 PROPOSED ZONING = PUD 3. PARKING SUMMARY BIKE COUNT SUMMARY SURFACE REGULAR STALLS = 41 1 PER DWELLING = 27 SURFACE HANDICAPPED STALLS = 2 1 PER 10 PARKING STALLS = 5 TOTAL SURFACE STALLS = 43 TOTAL REQUIRED = 32 BIKE STALLS INSIDE = 25 BIKE STALLS OUTSIDE = 26 TOTAL PROPOSED = 51 4. AREA/DENSITY TOTAL AREA = 39,977 SQ.FT. OR 0.918 AC. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 30,795 SQ.FT. OR 0.707 AC. = 77.0% PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 9,182 SQ.FT. OR 0.211 AC. =23.0% 5. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER SHEET C8-1 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLICATIONS. 6. THE CITY AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY (SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRIVEWAYS) 7. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 8. SEE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ANY REMOVAL DETAILS. 9. ANY SIGN OR FIXTURES REMOVED WITH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR AS PART OF THE SITE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ANY EXISTING STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 10. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. (SEE SHEET C3-1) 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM THE CITY AS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITH THE STREET AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 12. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES. 13. B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF ALL COMMON DRIVES AND PARKING LOTS. 14. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: A. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND AS SHOWN PER THE LANDSCAPE SITE PLANS. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW-CUT BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS AS REQUIRED PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. REMOVE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER AND INSTALL B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. 15. SEE SHEETS C3-1 AND C4-1 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. 16. ALL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER B612, CITY'S STANDARD PLATES. (SEE DETAIL SHEET). 17. THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THE EXISTING STREET PAVEMENT AS POSSIBLE, AND TO MILL AND OVERLAY. REMOVED PAVEMENT AREAS AND PATCHING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER PAVEMENT SECTION PROVIDED PER DETAIL SHEET. PAVEMENT LEGEND: CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SITE PLAN C2-1 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PJ Disch - PE 49933 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 07/10/2015 15186A MJS PJD PJD SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 42 TW=915.00 BW=915.00 TW=914.60 BW=909.00 TW=914.60 BW=904.50 TW=915.00 BW=905.80 TW=915.00 BW=906.20 TW=913.00 BW=913.00 TW=915.00 BW=907.00 TW=915.00 BW=907.00   TC=914.00 TSW=913.00 TC=914.90 TSW=913.90 TC=912.00 TSW=912.00 TW=912.00 BW=912.00 TW=915.50 BW=913.00 TW=916.20 BW=914.00 TW=916.20 BW=915.00 TW=915.90 BW=915.90 LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\EAST SITE\C3-1 GRADINGPlotted: 02 /24 / 2016 9:25 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN N  WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. GRADING PLAN C3-1 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PJ Disch - PE 49933 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 07/10/2015 15186A MJS PJD PJDSCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FEET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 3. GRADING OF THE INFILTRATION AREAS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED USING LOW-IMPACT EARTH-MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS. SMALL TRACKED DOZERS AND BOBCATS WITH RUNNER TRACKS ARE RECOMMENDED. 4. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 5. FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS "TW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OF WALL (NOT TOP OF WALL), "TC" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP OF CURB, "TSW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP OF SIDEWALK AND "BW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACE OF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES). 6. REFER TO THE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW (REPORT NO. ________), DATED ____________ AS PREPARED BY ________________FOR AN EXISTING SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITION ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS. 7. STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 8. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED. 9. SEE SWPPP FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. 10. SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR WATER, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION. 11. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 43 CONCRETE WASHOUT   ROCK ENTRANCE PAD INLET PROTECTION TYP LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\EAST SITE\C3-2 SWPPPPlotted: 02 /24 / 2016 9:25 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN NWARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C3-2 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PJ Disch - PE 49933 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 07/10/2015 15186A MJS PJD PJD SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INFILTRATION STORMWATER HARVEST AND REUSE FILTRATION WET SEDIMENTATION BASIN REGIONAL PONDING X ESTIMATED QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION UNIT TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA SILT FENCE (STANDARD)LF INLET PROTECTION EA QUANTITY 1 1 920 1 SEEDING/SOD AC 0.25 INLET PROTECTION SWPPP LEGEND SILT FENCE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SPECIAL WATERS SEARCH MAP SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 44   1 BO 1 BO 1 BO 4 HC 3 SH 3 AG 3 BL 19 FD 4 SJ 6 MS 3 DH 3 BH 3 BH 3 DH 3 DH 7 CE 2 BH2 BH 8 MS 6 DH 8 CE 8 LS 10 LS 6 SJ 7 EH 6 EH 5 BJ 4 FG 6 PS 9 SD 4 FG 3 EH 3 BJ 7 SG 3 BJ 6 EH 6 SG 6 FG 7 EH 4 BJ 8 FG 8 SG 4 BJ 7 SG 2 GS 2 GS 2 GS 1 PE 2 PE 2 HC 5 AP 4 BS 24 SJ DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE AG 3 AUTUMN GOLD GINKGO Ginkgo biloba `Autumn Gold`B & B 2.5"Cal BO 3 BICOLOR OAK Quercus bicolor B & B 2.5"Cal BL 3 BOULEVARD LINDEN Tilia americana `Boulevard`B & B 2.5"Cal PE 3 PRINCETON ELM Ulmus americana `Princeton`B & B 2.5"Cal SH 3 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Gleditsia triacanthos `Skycole`B & B 2.5"Cal EVERGREEN TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE AP 5 AUSTRIAN PINE Pinus nigra B & B 6` HGT BS 4 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea glauca `Densata`B & B 6` HGT ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE HC 6 HARVEST GOLD CRABAPPLE Malus x `Harvest Gold`B & B 1.5"Cal SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING DH 15 DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE Diervilla lonicera 5 gal 18" HGT 42" o.c. EH 29 ENDLESS SUMMER HYDRANGEA Hydrangea macrophylla `Endless Summer` TM 5 gal 24" HGT 48" o.c. FD 19 FIREDANCE DOGWOOD Cornus sericea `Bailadeline`5 gal 24" HGT 60" o.c. GS 6 GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low`5 gal 24" SPRD 72" o.c. LS 18 LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA Spirea japonica `Little Princess`5 gal 24" HGT 36" o.c. MS 14 MARLEEN SNOWBERRY Symphoricarpos x doorenbosii `Marleen` 5 gal 24" HGT 42" o.c. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING BJ 19 BLUE RUG JUNIPER Juniperus horizontalis `Wiltonii`5 gal 24" SPRD 60" o.c. CE 15 CANADALE GOLD EUONYMUS Euonymus fortunei `Canadale Gold`5 gal 24" SPRD 42" o.c. SJ 34 SEA GREEN JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis `Sea Green`5 gal 24" HGT 60" o.c. PERENNIALS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING BH 10 BLUE ANGEL HOSTA Hosta `Blue Angel`1 gal 36" o.c. FG 22 FEATHER REED GRASS Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster`1 gal 30" o.c. PS 6 PURPLE EMPEROR SEDUM Sedum `Purple Emperor`1 gal 24" o.c. SG 28 SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASS Panicum virgatum `Shenendoah`1 gal 30" o.c. SD 9 STELLA D` ORO DAYLILY Hemerocallis x `Stella de Oro`1 gal 24" o.c. PLANT SCHEDULE LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\East\L1-1Plotted: 02 /24 / 2016 9:32 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL COMPLETE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. WHERE SOD/SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC. SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOD. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MULCHED AS PER MNDOT SPECS. SOD ALL DESIGNATED AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SHRUB HEIGHT OR WIDTH. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 5' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES SHALL NOT BE USED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE FULL FORM, NATURAL TO THE SPECIES, WITHOUT PRUNING. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH A 27-3-3 SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. PLANTS MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 27-3-3 AT 6 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PER TREE AND 3 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 27-3-3 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER. ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS, AND/OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 45 PARTS TOPSOIL, 45 PARTS PEAT OR MANURE AND 10 PARTS SAND. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELS FROM PLANTS. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. BLACK METAL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD/SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO WEED BARRIER. ALL SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AND FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL TREES TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS. MAINTENANCE STRIPS TO HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED/INDICATED ON DRAWING OR IN SPECIFICATION. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT AND/OR INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING, FERTILIZATION AND DISEASE/PEST CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY (ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED/SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING FROM AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 15; DORMANT SEEDING IN THE FALL SHALL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL CONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1 AND DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF EXISTING OAKS ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANNER, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINT SHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOT TO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JULY 1. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE UNAVOIDABLE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT SOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE. IRRIGATION NOTES: VERIFY EXISTING/PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS NOT TO SPRINKLE ACROSS PAVEMENT. THE SYSTEM SHALL INCORPORATE A RAIN SENSOR INTO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION ARE TO BE WATERED REGULARLY UNTIL PLANTING/SOD/SEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. N Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Timothy J. Fedie - LA 48303 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.15186A MJS TJF TJF LANDSCAPE PLAN: DORA CALCULATIONS: SITE AREA = 39,967 SQ.FT. DORA REQUIRED (12% OF SITE AREA) = 4,796 SQ.FT. DORA PROPOSED = 5,651 SQ.FT. OR 14% (MARKED ON PLAN WITH HATCH) PLANTING DETAILS: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 1 TREE PER UNIT (ORNAMENTALS AT 2:1 RATIO) 6 SHRUBS PER 1,000 SF OF GROSS FLOOR AREA PROPOSED UNITS = 27 GROSS FLOOR AREA = 28,088 SF TREES REQUIRED = 27 TREES PROPOSED = 15 OVERSTORY, 9 CONIFEROUS, 6 ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS REQUIRED = 169 SHRUBS PROPOSED = 169 TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS = 48 CALIPER INCHES TOTAL PROPOSED = 69 CALIPER INCHES LANDSCAPE PLAN L1-1 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 45   LOUCKS W:\2015\15186.0A\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\East\L2-1Plotted: 02 /24 / 2016 9:33 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL Arlington Row Apartments East St. Louis Park, MN Melrose Company 22375 Murray Street Excelsior, MN 55331 01/15/16 CITY SUBMITTAL 02/05/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL 02/25/16 CITY RESUBMITTAL C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING PLAN C3-2, C3-3 & C3-4 SWPPP C4-1 SANITARY & WATERMAIN C4-2 STORM SEWER C8-1 DETAILS C8-2 CITY DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2-1 TREE INVENTORY PLAN N Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Timothy J. Fedie - LA 48303 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.15186A MJS TJF TJF TREE INVENTORY PLAN: TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS: TOTAL CALIPER INCHES = 40 CALIPER INCHES TO BE REMOVED = 40 CALIPER INCHES TO BE SAVED = 0 ((40/40)-0.2) x 1.5 x 40 = 48 48 CALIPER INCHES REQUIRED FOR MITIGATION REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED TREES. TREE INVENTORY PLAN L2-1 City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 46 1 A3.42 A3.4 A B C D 2 1 A A3.0 C A3.0 B A3.0 E F G H 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 1 A3.3 2 A3.0 1 A3.0 /1 A1.2/1 A1.4 23' - 1 1/8"36' - 4 1/4"23' - 1 1/8"22' - 0"23' - 1 1/8"72' - 4 1/4"23' - 1 1/8" 223' - 1"44' - 7 1/2"7' - 1 3/4"7' - 8 3/8"5' - 6 1/4"9' - 2 1/4"2 BED 1A 1A/A8.2 B - 1 - 01 2 BED 1Aa 1/A8.7 B - 1 - 13 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 1/A8.1 B - 1 - 02 2 BED 1Ab 1/A8.8 B - 1 - 03 2 BED (2 STORY) 1Ba 1/A8.6 B - 1 - 04 2 BED (2 STORY) 1Ba 1/A8.6 B - 1 - 05 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 B - 1 - 06 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 B - 1 - 07 1 BED 1C 2/A8.2 B - 1 - 08 COMMON B - 1 - 108 BIKE STOR. / SERVICEB - 1 - 1092 BED 1Aa 1/A8.7 B - 1 - 11 2 BED 1A 1A/A8.2 B - 1 - 10 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 1/A8.1 B - 1 - 09 RESTROOM B - 1 - 110 STORAGE B - 1 - 111 VESTIBULE - B - 1 - 101 VESTIBULE - B - 1 - 100 LOBBY - LOBBY B - 1 - 102 DW4 2 B 1 8 Fw4 1 MAIL AND PACKAGE BOXES 6' - 2 3/8"4' - 6"1' - 10 5/8"2 1/8" 18' - 2 1/8" 2 1/8"2 1/8" 2 1/8"2 1/8"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0" 4' - 6"6' - 2 3/8"1' - 10 5/8"16' - 8 1/8"18' - 0 1/8" A8.6 1 A8.7 1 A8.8 1 1 A3.42 A3.4 A B C D 2 1 A A3.0 C A3.0 B A3.0 E F G H 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 1 A3.3 2 A3.0 1 A3.0 /1 A1.5/1 A1.6 23' - 1 1/8"36' - 4 1/4"23' - 1 1/8"22' - 0"23' - 1 1/8"72' - 4 1/4"23' - 1 1/8" 223' - 1"44' - 7 1/2"7' - 9"5' - 2 3/4"2' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"8' - 8 1/4"4' - 10 7/16"7' - 1 3/4"8' - 0 13/16"TRELLIS WITH LED STRING LIGHTS PROVIDE POWER AND INTERIOR CONTROLS 18' - 0" 18' - 0"2 1/8"18' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0" 2 1/8"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 2 1/8"1' - 6"19' - 5 1/8"6' - 1 1/4"19' - 1 1/8"1' - 6"20' - 5 1/8"5' - 1 1/4"19' - 1 1/8"5 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 4"2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 B - 2 - 01 1 BED (2 STORY) 2Ca 1/A8.10 B - 2 - 03 2 BED (2 STORY) 2Ba 1/A8.9 B - 2 - 06 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - 2 - 022 BED (2 STORY) 1B 2/A8.1 B - 2 - 2 BED (2 STORY) 1Ba 2/A8.6 B - 2 - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - 2 - 04 2 BED (2 STORY) 1Ba 2/A8.6 B - 2 - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2Ba 1/A8.9 B - 2 - 07 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 B - 2 - 08 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 B - 2 - 10 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - 2 - 09 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - 2 - 11 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - 2 - 12 2 BED (2 STORY) 1B 2/A8.1 B - 2 - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - 2 - 14 2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 B - 2 - 152 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 B - 2 - 13 CIRCULATION B - 2 - 200 CIRCULATION B - 2 - 200 1 BED (2 STORY) 2Ca 1/A8.10 B - 2 - 05 8(EQ) A8.6 2 A8.9 1A8.10 1 elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or repo r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # Date PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY P LAN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **2/25/2016 4:46:19 PMA1.0 FLOOR PLAN 215515 Author Checker 10/26/15 ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE PUD / COM P PLAN - 2/25/2016 B 3/32" = 1'-0"A1.0 1 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL 3/32" = 1'-0"A1.0 2 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL No.Desc r iption Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 47 1 A3.42 A3.4 A B C D 2 1 A A3.0 C A3.0 B A3.0 E F G H 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 1 A3.3 2 A3.0 1 A3.0 /1 A1.7/1 A1.8 23' - 1 1/8"36' - 4 1/4"23' - 1 1/8"22' - 0"23' - 1 1/8"72' - 4 1/4"23' - 1 1/8" 223' - 1"44' - 7 1/2"7' - 8 3/8"2' - 0"18' - 0"2' - 0"7' - 1 3/4"2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2Ca 2/A8.10 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2Ca 2/A8.10 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2Ba -- B - - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2Ba 2/A8.9 B - - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 B - - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 B - - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2A 1/A8.4 B - - 2 BED (2 STORY) 2B 1/A8.5 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - - 1 BED (2 STORY) 2C 1/A8.3 B - - 18' - 2 1/8"18' - 0" 18' - 2 1/8"18' - 2 1/8" 2 1/8"24' - 0"24' - 0" 2' - 6"2' - 6"25' - 2 3/8"25' - 4 1/2"UNOCCUPIED ATTIC UNOCCUPIED ATTIC UNOCCUPIED ATTIC UNOCCUPIED ATTIC 13' - 2 3/8" 4' - 9 5/8" 13' - 2 3/8" SCUPPER WITH DOWNSPOUT TO ROOF BELOW VALLEY OF SLOPED TPO ROOFING BELOW WOOD DECK ALUMINUM SCREEN DOORS AT UNIT PATIOS CEDAR SCREEN WALL A8.10 2 A8.9 2 A B C D 2 1 DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUTDOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT E F G H 44' - 7 1/2"7' - 1 3/4"A.A1.4 1 12" / 12"12" / 12"7" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"4" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"3 3/4" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"7" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12" 12" / 12"12" / 12"4" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"3 3/4" / 12"7" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"7" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12"12" / 12" VALLEY FLASHING / ASSEMBLY •32" GALVANIZED METAL VALLEY FLASHING •SELF ADHERING & SELF HEALING NON GRANULATED ICE AND WATER SHIELD, (VERIFY WITH SHINGLE WARRANTY) •EXTEND MIN 42" EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE OF VALLEY •PROVIDE MIN 6" LAP BETWEEN ALL LAYERS OF ICE AND WATER SHIELD •INSTALL SHINGLES IN 'WEAVE' FASHION •DO NOT PENETRATE / FASTEN WITHIN 12" EACH INSIDE OF VALLEY EAVE & RAKE •DRIP EDGE •SELF ADHERING & SELF HEALING NON GRANULATED ICE AND WATER SHIELD, (VERIFY WITH SHINGLE WARRANTY) •EXTEND MIN 36" BEYOND PERIMETER OF BUILDING ENVELOPE •PROVIDE MIN 6" LAP BETWEEN ALL LAYERS OF ICE AND WATER SHEILD ROOF TO WALL CONDITION ALONG SLOPE •WRAP ICE AND WATER SHIELD UP MIN 24" VERTICAL ON ADJACENT WALLS •ICE AND WATER SHIELD MIN 36" OUT FROM FACE OF WALL •8" X 8" STEP FLASHING AT ALL ROOF TO WALL CONDITIONS •KICK OUT FLASHING AT TERMINATION / END •INSTALL WEATHER BARRIER AND COUNTER FLASH OVER VERTICAL STEP FLASHING •SEE ELEVATIONS FOR WALL FINISH 15' - 6"15' - 6"15' - 6" 15' - 2 3/8"15' - 2 3/8"15' - 2 3/8"15' - 2 3/8"15' - 2 3/8"15' - 2 3/8" 15' - 2 3/8"15' - 2 3/8" 1' - 2 1/2"2' - 6"1' - 0"1' - 2 1/4" 3' - 7 3/4" 1' - 0"2' - 6"1' - 0"3' - 0 1/4"3' - 2 1/4"3' - 2 1/4" 3' - 7 3/4" 1' - 2 1/4"1' - 0 1/4"1' - 2 1/2"2' - 6"1' - 0"1' - 0"2' - 6"1' - 0"1' - 2 1/2"3' - 0 1/4"elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or repo r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # Date PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY P LAN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **2/25/2016 4:46:20 PMA1.1 FLOOR PLAN 215515 ESG ESG ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE PUD / COM P PLAN - 2/25/2016 B 3/32" = 1'-0"A1.1 1 BP-03 - LEVEL 3 - OVERALL 3/32" = 1'-0"A1.1 2 LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT (ROOF) No.Desc r iption Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 48 CLASS 1 MATERIAL 5175sf 80% CLASS 2 MATERIAL 1315 sf 20% CLASS 1 MATERIAL 5171 sf 74% CLASS 2 MATERIAL 1843 sf 26% CLASS 2 MATERIAL 248 sf 18% CLASS 1 MATERIAL 1181 sf 82% LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 109' - 11" LEVEL 0 - TOP OF FTG 95' - 0" LEVEL 3 119' - 10" LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT 128' - 5 1/4"8' - 7 1/4"9' - 11"9' - 11"5' - 0"30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES10A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A B5 B5 /1 A3.3 /2 A3.3 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21BILLUMINATED BUILDING SIGN BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A ?? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 109' - 11" LEVEL 0 - TOP OF FTG 95' - 0" LEVEL 3 119' - 10" LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT 128' - 5 1/4" /1 A3.2 /2 A3.2 FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A 30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES10A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11ABRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21B FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6AFIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or repo r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # Date PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY P LAN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **2/25/2016 4:47:06 PMA3.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL 215515 ESG ESG ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE PUD / COM P PLAN - 2/25/2016 B 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.0 A SOUTH ELEVATION - Material Area 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.0 B NORTH ELEVATION - Material Area 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.0 C EAST ELEVATION (WEST MIRRORED) - Material Area 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.0 1 SOUTH ELEVATION - OVERALL 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.0 2 NORTH ELEVATION - OVERALL No.Desc r iption Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 49 LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 109' - 11" LEVEL 0 - TOP OF FTG 95' - 0" LEVEL 3 119' - 10" LEVEL 4 - TOP PLT 128' - 5 1/4" 100' - 0" 20 8' - 7 1/4"9' - 11"9' - 11"5' - 0"CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 1 - SOLDIER1A.1 30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES10A FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 21B FIBERCEMENT LAP SIDING 4"6A 30 YR ARCHITECTURAL LAMINATED SHINGLES10A CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A LEVEL 1 100' - 0" CEMENT PLASTER / STUCCO7 BRICK / MASONRY - TYPE 11A elness swenson graham architects 500 washington avenue south m inneapolis m innesota 55415 p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8 f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2 w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or repo r t was prepared by m e or under m y direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the State of M innesota Signature Typed or Printed Nam e License # Date PROJECT NUM BER D RAW N BY CHECKED BY O RIGINAL ISSUE: REVISIO NS KEY P LAN N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N **D R A F T **2/25/2016 4:47:39 PMA3.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 215515 Author Checker 04/09/15 ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE ARLINGTON ROW - 13TH STREET SITE PUD / COM P PLAN - 2/25/2016 B 3/16" = 1'-0"A3.4 1 EAST ELEVATION REF SHEET A-A3.3 UNO 3/16" = 1'-0"A3.4 2 WEST ELEVATION - REF SHEET A-A3.3 UNO No.Desc r iption Date City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 50 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 17, 2016 – 6:08 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Ethan Rickert (youth member) STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Julie Grove, Gary Morrison OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of February 3, 2016 Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of February 3, 2016. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. Public Hearings A. Preliminary and Final Plat; Preliminary and Final PUD Arlington Row Apartments East Location: 7700 block, south side Wayzata Blvd. between Rhode Island and Pennsylvania Ave. Applicant: Melrose Company, LLC Case No.: 16-02-S and 16-03-PUD Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist, presented the staff report. The requests are made to allow construction of a three-story multi-family residential building that includes a total of 27 units. Ms. Grove provided background on the site, noting that a “sister” development Arlington Row Apartments West was approved by the City Council in November, 2015. She stated that the Metropolitan Council awarded the Arlington Row West & East developments a $581,000 Livable Communities demonstration grant for stormwater, geothermal and solar/energy efficiency. Ms. Grove discussed utility easements and subdivision variance being requested as part of the plat request. She provided building and site analysis, zoning analysis, traffic study summary, landscaping, and designed outdoor recreation area analysis for the Planned Unit Development. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 51 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 17, 2016 Page 2 Ms. Grove spoke about the neighborhood meeting which was held on February 9, 2016 on the proposed development. She said the primary concerns regard increased traffic and parking along 13th Lane. Other concerns included height and scale of the building and negative impact on property values. Ms. Grove said since the meeting, planning and engineering staff have been working with the developer to explore potential ways to alleviate parking concerns on 13th Lane. Commissioner Peilen asked if construction had begun on Arlington Row Apts. West. Ms. Grove responded that phased construction is anticipated to commence on Arlington Row West in the spring. Commissioner Peilen asked what kind of progress is being made on parking concerns on 13th Lane. Ms. Grove responded staff is looking at several options. She said there will be a process but perhaps parking could be limited on only one side of the street. The potential for installing a parking bay on the north side had been ruled out. Commissioner Carper asked the maximum capacity on 13 Lane from corner to corner. Bob Cunningham, principal Melrose Company, applicant, responded that the capacity adjacent to the development is approximately 10 stalls. Commissioner Carper asked about guest parking. Ms. Grove responded that guest parking is incorporated into the required parking. Commissioner Carper asked about affordable housing. Ms. Grove said with the grant received from Met Council, the developer had indicated they would incorporate 6 affordable units total at the complete development (West and East) at 80% of area median income. Commissioner Carper asked about the sidewalk. Ms. Grove responded the sidewalk will just be along the property line. She said the hope is that eventually it will connect to Pennsylvania Ave. which does have a sidewalk. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 52 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 17, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Carper asked if the Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) would be fenced off. He asked about south facing building materials. Ms. Grove responded the DORA will be an open design. She said there is less area of class I materials on the south primarily resulting from the building design and natural breaks in the façade. Mr. Cunningham, said apartment residents will be issued a parking sticker. Non- assigned resident parking and non-assigned guest parking will be inside the project. Two electric car plug-ins will be added. He said the development is 100% market rate apartments. In conjunction with the Met Council grant, Melrose agreed to 10% threshold over Arlington Row East and West together. That would be 6 units. He added that seventeen of the market rate units are affordable at 80% of the area median income without subsidy, rather on a market rate basis in the developers own pro forma. Mr. Cunningham said even though the sidewalk is just along the property line, a connection has been created from 13th Lane to Wayzata Blvd. on the west side of the property. He said the DORA will not be fenced. It will be a landscaped lawn. Raised garden beds will be included. The DORA is not a neighborhood type park, it is provided for residents of Arlington Row East. He said the development is being proposed at this location as it is one of the very few infill lots left in St. Louis Park and it is very well located less than 1,000 ft. away from a high volume transit facility. He spoke about indoor bike parking which will be available. Mike Engel, ESG Architects, further discussed the exterior materials and reasons for the selections. Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. Jana Agrey, 7611 13th Lane, has lived there over 25 years. She said she is disappointed. She didn’t expect the property would remain vacant but she didn’t expect to have a 3-story apartment building with tons of traffic on the street. She said there is already parking overflow from the building at Pennsylvania and Wayzata Blvd. She said getting onto the frontage road is already difficult. She spoke about a letter she received from a mortgage company recently soliciting to sell her property. She said neighbors are also getting similar letters and phone calls. She wonders if they are going to be pushed out or forced out. Joy Preston, 7621 13th Lane, said she shares the same concerns. Neighbors did not expect a 3-story building on the lot two stories higher than the one-story City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 53 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 17, 2016 Page 4 single family homes. It is kind of shocking. She said her household has three cars and a shared driveway. During snow emergencies cars have to be juggled around. If there is parking on 13th Lane, one-side of the street, she will lose parking for her household. Curb to curb plowing does not occur. Space is lost on a narrow road and tight corner. There are concerns about school bus coming down there with parking on both sides of the street. Yvette Peters-Hutchins, 7721 13th Lane, discussed the plat drawing. She said 13th between Texas and Rhode Island goes straight into her driveway. She said she measured the street distance curb to curb which is about 26 ft. wide. With snow it is about 25 feet. Her truck is 8 feet wide, a standard Nissan Maxima is about 6 - 7ft. wide, a fire engine truck is about 8 feet wide not including mirrors and 24 ft. long, a garage truck is 8 ½ feet not including mirrors, and an ambulance is 8 feet wide not including mirrors. She said if cars are parked on both sides of the street on Rhode Island and in front of her property, emergency vehicles will not be able to get through. School buses often get stuck. She said it is alarming. Parking is a problem. In her front yard she will be looking at a building that will be 36 ½ ft. high. She said she has already contacted a realtor because she can’t look at that. She said it is a very quiet, great neighborhood with no crime and no issues. She spoke about an apartment complex on Pennsylvania which has weekly police calls. She said she’s concerned with Arlington’s lack of parking, high prices, no underground parking in the winter, that it won’t be desirable. What about fifteen years down the road when people don’t want to pay those prices without underground parking. She said residents will be encouraged to park on the street as it will be more convenient. She said she is alarmed about this area of St. Louis Park. She said it is a make it or break it project. Chair Johnston-Madison asked if the neighbors had any suggestions about parking. Ms. Peters-Hutchins responded yes, saying permit parking for residents on the street would be great. She said the residents of the apartment complex could park in their parking lot or not park at all. John Johnson, 7701 13th Lane, stated he agrees with his neighbors. He doesn’t want to look at the building. There are parking and emergency vehicle issues. He said the Texas/Wayzata intersection is already dangerous. It doesn’t need to become more dangerous. He wonders what the big picture is. Do they want to put in more apartments? Do they want to force the neighborhood out? He said he has a retirement plan and this does not work for his plan. He said he is very disappointed. He does not want the project to go forward. The neighborhood is a great place to live. They don’t need more traffic. They don’t need any more crime. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 54 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 17, 2016 Page 5 Anthony Hutchins, 7721 13th Lane, said he was concerned about taxes going up because the waste water system can’t support the additional load of the development. He said the schools are already over capacity. He said the schools will not acknowledge that there are drugs in the schools. He said if the new development brings in kids there will be problems. He said a lot of the kids in the Pennsylvania Ave. apartments are on drugs and sell drugs in the parks. He said there are drugs in that Section 8 apartment building all of the time. He said if the new development brings in Section 8, the same thing will happen. There goes the neighborhood. He asked if additional policing will be provided. Chair Johnston-Madison stated that the new development is not Section 8 housing. It is market rate affordable housing. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, explained the Section 8, or housing choice voucher program, and explained that affordable housing does not equate to low income housing. Arlington Row Apartments is not subsidized or low income housing. The one bedroom unit rents at approx. $1,100 are market rate and affordable at 80% of the area median income. The median income means that half the households in the metro area make more than that and half the people in the metro area make less than that. He said in St. Louis Park and the metro area, 80% of the area median income is not low income. It is simply affordable. Sharon Desaimeaux, 7720 W. 13 ½ St., stated that last summer there was a drug bust in the apartment buildings on Pennsylvania. She said she doesn’t want to see that happen on 13th. She said she sees who lives in those buildings. They walk down her street. She said she is starting to feel uncomfortable. If you put housing like this in the next block she doesn’t want to live in fear. Mr. Cunningham said a lot of thought was given regarding parking for the project. He said the only point of ingress and egress for the parking lot is going to be off of Wayzata. Access is not on 13th Lane. Parking, ingress and egress, will be away from the neighbors. He said that isn’t to say that residents or guests will not be parking on 13th Lane, but it will be more convenient for residents to park in the parking lot. Mr. Cunningham commented on letters and calls residents received from mortgage companies. He stated that Melrose Company is not involved in that in any way. Regarding waste water and stormwater, he said the Engineering Dept. has determined there are adequate utilities to service the project. Stormwater cannot leave a site at any faster rate than it does now. No additional burden will be placed on the stormwater system. The Chair closed the public hearing as there was no one else present wishing to speak. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 55 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 17, 2016 Page 6 Commissioner Peilen and Mr. Cunningham discussed background checks that are conducted on rental applications. Commissioner Peilen discussed in detail background checks that are important to any responsible property manager. Chair Johnston-Madison discussed changes to neighborhoods. She spoke about the city task force that was created to review vacant lots, and she had participated. She said Arlington Row is a good project and she is very familiar with Mr. Cunningham and Excelsior & Grand. She said she knows the thought and care that has gone into his previous projects. She said Mr. Cunningham is one of the best developers. Commissioner Carper spoke about a property owner’s right to develop when city requirements are met. He said he routinely receives inquiries from realtors about his home. He said he had a tear down and rebuild on his street and is familiar with change. He said Arlington Row is a quality development and there isn’t any reason to deny the request. Commissioner Peilen said she liked the possibility of having permit parking for residents on 13th Street. She spoke about her own street where that occurred with a restaurant development. Commissioner Tatalovich said he agreed with Commissioner Peilen about permit parking. He made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat with subdivision variance; and the Arlington Row East Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development. He asked that staff and developer continue to work on the parking and traffic situation on 13th Lane. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4- 0. B. Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash Location: 8700 Highway 7 Applicant: Mister Car Wash (Sheldon Berg, DJR Architecture) Case No.: 15-51-CUP Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant, presented the staff report. The request is in connection with a proposed expansion of an existing carwash building. The applicant wishes to rescind the existing special permit to allow a carwash in the FEMA floodplain, and replace it with a conditional use permit to allow a carwash located in the FEMA floodplain. Mr. Miller reviewed conditions of approval. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8c) Title: Arlington Row Apartments East –Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final PUD Page 56 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding the existing Special Permit to allow a car wash in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and FEMA floodplain, and approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate and expand the existing car wash in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and FEMA floodplain, subject to conditions recommended by staff. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed CUP meet the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance? SUMMARY: The existing car wash is operating under a Special Permit originally approved on September 19, 1988. The City no longer issues Special Permits, so, at the discretion of the property owner, the Special Permit may be replaced with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Applicant is requesting to rescind the Special Permit, and replace it with a CUP to operate a car wash, expand the existing car wash building and reconfigure the drive lanes and parking area. This property is located in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and Flood Fringe Overlay district, which both require a CUP for a car wash facility. There are a number of specific conditions required for a car wash facility, all of which are reviewed in the attached discussion. Staff finds that the proposed expansion of the existing car wash and reconfiguration of the drive lanes and parking area meets the standards of the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and Flood Fringe Overlay district. Staff also finds that the proposed car wash expansion satisfies the specific required conditions for a motor vehicle service and repair use, as well as the additional conditions required for a car wash use. The CUP was presented to the Planning Commission on February 17th where a public hearing was conducted. No comments were received from the public, and the Planning Commission recommended approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes Aerial Photo Development Plans Prepared by: Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant Reviewed by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Action Agenda Item: 8d City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 DISCUSSION Description of Request: The Applicant is requesting that the existing Special Permit be rescinded and replaced by a Conditional Use Permit to allow a car wash facility, and expansion of the existing building. This property is located in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and Flood Fringe Overlay district, which both require a CUP for a motor vehicle service and repair use, including car washes. Location: Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-2 Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood: Aquila Zoning Analysis: Proposal: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing Mister Car Wash building by adding a 1,354 sq. ft. two-stall interior bay to the west side of the existing building. This expansion will facilitate preliminary car wash services and vehicle drop-offs in order to increase the efficiency of the car wash operations. The more efficient car wash operations will decrease waiting times during peak business hours which will reduce traffic impacts on 37th Street West. In the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and Flood Fringe Overlay district, a CUP is required for a motor vehicle service and repair use, including car washes. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 3 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 Site Plan: A 1,354 sq. ft. building expansion is proposed on the west side of the building. As a result of this building expansion, the applicant is also proposing to reconfigure vehicle circulation on the site by having vehicles enter on the west side of the site rather than the east side, as they do today. The required employee parking spaces are proposed to be relocated from the west side of the site to the east side. Reconfiguration of the drive lanes and parking area will require site grading, paving, landscaping, and retaining wall repair. The existing billboard and access to it will not be modified or altered as a result of the proposed development. Parking: Per the zoning ordinance, a car wash is required to provide 10 off-street parking spaces, and the applicant is proposing 10 parking spaces. A car wash is also required to accommodate the stacking of at least 30 cars or the maximum number of vehicles which can be washed during a 30- minute period, whichever is greater. The proposed reconfiguration of the drive lanes will provide more than 37 spaces. Landscaping: Per the zoning ordinance, a minimum of 13 canopy or evergreen trees are required for this site. The applicant’s landscape plan and removals plan show 11 canopy trees remaining on the site and two canopy trees being added. Flood Fringe Overlay District: FEMA flood maps depict an estimation as to where the flood plain is located. When a development is proposed and shown to be in the flood plain, the next step is to locate the actual flood elevation with a survey to determine how accurate the flood map is. In this case, the FEMA flood maps show the building to be located in the flood plain, however, the existing building and all the proposed improvements are actually located above the flood elevation and therefore, not in the actual flood plain. Therefore, there will be no construction or fill placed in the flood plain, and no mitigation required. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing. No one from the public was present wishing to speak. The Planning Commission discussed the potential impact of the scheduled replacement of the 37th Street bridge in 2017, such as a change in elevation of 37th Street where the property’s driveways access 37th Street. The applicant has been made aware of this project and its potential impacts. The Planning Commission also discussed the potential for flooding since the western portion of the site is located in the FEMA floodplain. The existing building, proposed building addition, and reconfigured drive lanes/parking area are proposed to be located above the regulatory flood protection elevation as required by the Flood Fringe Overlay District, which will provide flood protection for the property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP. A copy of the unofficial meeting minutes is attached. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 4 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 D R A F T RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR WASH FACILITY, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-193(d)(2) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A CAR WASH FACILITY AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IN THE C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND FRINGE FLOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8700 MN HIGHWAY 7 BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Mister Car Wash has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-193(d)(2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of expanding the existing car wash building and reconfiguring the drive lanes and parking area. 2. The subject property is zoned C-2 General Commercial, and is located at 8700 MN Highway 7. It is legally described as follows, to-wit: That part of Tract X, Registered Land Survey No. 1058, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, lying Westerly of a line erected perpendicular to the Northerly line of said Tract X from a point thereon distant 268.76 feet Westerly from the most Northerly corner of said Tract X, as measured along said Northerly line, except the Easterly 130 feet thereof, and except that part thereof which lies Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Tract X; thence on an assumed bearing of North 79 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East along the Northerly line of said Tract X, a distance of 25.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 25 degrees 57 minutes 15 seconds West to the Westerly line of said Tract X and there terminating. Being registered land as is evidence by Certificate of Title No. 682713 and 682715. 3. The City Council considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 15-51-CUP) and the effect of the proposed development on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Council determined that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, and will not depreciate surrounding property values. The Council also determined that the proposed development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The contents of Planning Case File 15-51-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 5 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 Conclusion The Special Permit is hereby rescinded, and replaced by a Conditional Use Permit to allow a car wash facility, an expansion of the existing car wash building and reconfiguration of the drive lanes and parking area at the property described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following exhibits: a. Exhibit A: Site Plan b. Exhibit B: Landscaping Plan c. Exhibit C: Grading & Drainage Plan d. Exhibit D: Building Elevations 2. All proposed grading and filling must comply with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements. 3. Any grading within the floodplain must meet requirements of the City’s floodplain ordinance. 4. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner(s). b. All necessary permits must be obtained, including City and MCWD erosion control and stormwater permits. c. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (sidewalks, utilities, street lights, landscaping, irrigation, etc.) and private site landscaping. 5. The site shall meet all fire lane requirements. 6. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. b. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties. 7. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 6 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 17, 2016 – 6:08 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Ethan Rickert (youth member) STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Julie Grove, Gary Morrison OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant 3. Public Hearings B. Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash Location: 8700 Highway 7 Applicant: Mister Car Wash (Sheldon Berg, DJR Architecture) Case No.: 15-51-CUP Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant, presented the staff report. The request is in connection with a proposed expansion of an existing carwash building. The applicant wishes to rescind the existing special permit to allow a carwash in the FEMA floodplain, and replace it with a conditional use permit to allow a carwash located in the FEMA floodplain. Mr. Miller reviewed conditions of approval. Chair Johnston-Madison spoke about the new entrance at 37th. She remarked that she understands the elevation of the road will be changed at some point. Mr. Miller said the applicants are aware that the elevation will change in conjunction with the bridge replacement project. Commissioner Carper asked about flooding and the design of the building. Mr. Miller said the western portion of the site that is in the flood fringe overlay district needs to be able to flood internally. He said that is the case here. It would flood internally on the site, not the building, and not into the creek. Tim Vaughan, owner and applicant, explained that the proposal is a way to improve the efficiency and internal circulation of the car wash and the site. The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of rescinding the existing special permit and approving a conditional use permit to allow a carwash located in the FEMA floodplain with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 7 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 AERIAL PHOTO City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Page 8 Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7 DEVELOPMENT PLANS Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Landscaping Plan Exhibit C: Grading & Drainage Plan Exhibit D: Building Elevations 20.370.57.344.663.0105.0 13.348.9 68.97.3 S78°49'36"W 155.42S25°38'21"W 280.26Δ=1°13'25"L=242.57R=11359.16N11°10'24"W 2 4 3 . 9 6 ???N78°48'54"E 81.312611 IN" ASH2412" ASH234" CEDAR224" CEDAR214" CEDAR2012" APPLE1810" APPLE1710" APPLE28-8" ASH19" ASH38" ASH612" ASH812" MULBERRY1312" APPLE158" APPLE1612" APPLE1416" WILLOW510" ASH48" ASH12-10" BOXELDER10" ELM258" ASHSITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTION MISTER CAR WASH 8700 HIGHWAY 7, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 900 BELVIEW ROAD, SOUTH HAVEN, MN 55382 KOEHLER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .96*5657+6'56.17+52#4-/0CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-20039/4/15 CITY SUBMITTALNGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE AREA TABLE:48776David J. KnaebleLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.9/4/15City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7Page 9 20.370.57.344.663.0105.0 13.348.9 68.97.3 2611 IN" ASH2412" ASH234" CEDAR224" CEDAR214" CEDAR2012" APPLE1810" APPLE1710" APPLE28-8" ASH19" ASH38" ASH612" ASH812" MULBERRY1312" APPLE158" APPLE1612" APPLE1416" WILLOW510" ASH48" ASH12-10" BOXELDER10" ELM258" ASHISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTION MISTER CAR WASH 8700 HIGHWAY 7, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 900 BELVIEW ROAD, SOUTH HAVEN, MN 55382 KOEHLER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .96*5657+6'56.17+52#4-/0CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-20039/4/15 CITY SUBMITTALNGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.9/4/15TREE INVENTORY & REQUIRED LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:LANDSCAPE NOTES:IRRIGATION NOTES:City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7Page 10 20.370.57.344.663.0105.0 13.348.9 68.97.3 S78°49'36"W 155.42S25°38'21"W 280.26Δ=1°13'25"L=242.57R=11359.16N11°10'24"W 2 4 3 . 9 6 ???N78°48'54"E 81.312611 IN" ASH2412" ASH234" CEDAR224" CEDAR214" CEDAR2012" APPLE1810" APPLE1710" APPLE28-8" ASH19" ASH38" ASH612" ASH812" MULBERRY1312" APPLE158" APPLE1612" APPLE1416" WILLOW510" ASH48" ASH12-10" BOXELDER10" ELM258" ASHGENERAL GRADING NOTES:GRADING PLAN LEGEND:891.0 G891.0 BC891.0 BS/TSGROUNDWATER INFORMATION:CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK GRADING NOTES:EROSION CONTROL NOTES:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTION MISTER CAR WASH 8700 HIGHWAY 7, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 900 BELVIEW ROAD, SOUTH HAVEN, MN 55382 KOEHLER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .96*5657+6'56.17+52#4-/0CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-20039/4/15 CITY SUBMITTALNGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.0GRADING PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .48776David J. KnaebleLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.9/4/15City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7Page 11 AE15A100D3--D243BCEXISTINGCARWASH11354 SFADDITION230' - 6"42' - 0"36' - 0"Level 1100' - 0"Low Parapet114' - 8"AEntry Parapet110' - 8"BC10' - 8"4' - 0"Level 1100' - 0"Low Parapet114' - 8"ADHigh Parapet118' - 0"Entry Parapet110' - 8"BCADDITION30' - 6"EXISTING64' - 6"3' - 4"4' - 0"10' - 8"Level 1100' - 0"Low Parapet114' - 8"15243High Parapet118' - 0"Entry Parapet110' - 8"3' - 4"4' - 0"10' - 8"ARCHITECTURE, INCCopyright 2014 DJR Architecture, IncCBAD4321333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENTIssue:Date:Project #:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:CONTRACTORSTRUCTURALCIVILPRELIMINARY; NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA100Plans & ElevationsEnter address hereApprover9-11-1515-0329-11-15APSBMR. CAR WASH ADDITIONDesigner 3/32" = 1'-0"A1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 1/8" = 1'-0"D3ADDITION NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"D4SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"D5WEST ELEVATIOND23D View 1C33D View 2D13D View 3City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8d) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Mister Car Wash, 8700 MN Highway 7Page 12 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending the zoning ordinance relating to distilleries and cocktail rooms, and to set the second reading for April 4, 2016. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support the proposed changes to allow distilleries with cocktail rooms? SUMMARY: Staff is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance to allow distilleries to operate cocktail rooms in the following manner: 1. Establish a Land Use Definition for Microdistilleries and Cocktail Rooms. 2. Allow a Microdistillery that produces up to 40,000 proof gallons per calendar year in the Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), and General Industrial (IG) Zoning Districts as permitted with conditions. 3. Allow a Microdistillery in the BP or IP Zoning Districts to operate a Microdistillery Cocktail Room with conditions. Planning Commission Review: On February 17, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the requested zoning amendment. No one was present to speak, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance as presented. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Proposed Ordinance Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Discussion Item: 8e City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 2 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms DISCUSSION REQUEST: Staff is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to: 1. Establish a Land Use Definition for Microdistilleries and Cocktail Rooms. 2. Allow a Microdistillery that produces up to 40,000 proof gallons per calendar year in the Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), and General Industrial (IG) Zoning Districts as permitted with conditions. 3. Allow a Microdistillery in the BP or IP Zoning Districts to operate a Microdistillery Cocktail Room with conditions. BACKGROUND: St. Louis Park liquor license regulations: The City liquor license ordinance was amended in January of 2016 to create a license for microdistillery cocktail rooms and an off-sale license for microdistilleries. As a result of the new ordinance: 1. A license for a microdistillery cocktail room may be issued with the following conditions: a. No single entity may hold both a microdistillery cocktail room and taproom license, and a cocktail room and taproom may not be co-located. b. A restaurant is not allowed at a microdistillery with a cocktail room license. 2. A license for a Microdistillery off-sale may be issued with the following conditions: a. The license permits the sale of one 375 milliliter bottle per customer per day of product manufactured on site; b. Off-sale shall be limited to the legal hours for off-sale pursuant to City Code section 3-105; and c. No brand may be sold at the microdistillery unless it is available for distribution by wholesalers. State Statutes: Microdistilleries by state law are defined as producing less than 40,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits per calendar year. State law also allows cities to issue licenses for microdistillery cocktail rooms. The city ordinance adopted in January of 2016 is consistent with state statutes. Zoning Amendment: The proposed microdistillery ordinance is modeled after the brewery/taproom ordinance. Microdistilleries and microdistillery cocktail rooms are proposed to be allowed in the same manner as breweries and taprooms and with the same conditions. A summary of the proposed ordinance follows: 1. Staff proposes to create the following land use definitions that would be added into the zoning ordinance: Microdistillery means a distillery producing premium, distilled spirits in total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. Microdistillery cocktail room. The on-sale sale of distilled liquor produced by the distiller on the premises of or adjacent to a microdistillery location owned by a distiller. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 3 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms 2. Currently we consider microdistilleries under the “manufacturing/processing” land use which is a permitted land use (Conditional Use Permit not required) in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Zoning Districts. The proposed ordinance would create the Microdistilleries land use, and allow them in the General Industrial Zoning District as a permitted use, however, a cocktail room would not be allowed. They are also proposed to be allowed in the Business Park and Industrial Park zoning districts as permitted with conditions and with the following conditions: 1. The microdistillery shall not produce more than 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. 2. In the Business Park district, up to 25% of the gross floor area of the microdistillery may be used for any combination of retail and a microdistillery cocktail room. 3. In the Industrial Park district, up to 15% of the gross floor area of the microdistillery may be used for any combination of retail and a microdistillery cocktail room. The 25% and 15% floor area limitations are already established in the Business Park and Industrial Park Zoning District for retail and service uses. Staff proposes to include the microdistillery cocktail room in the area limitation so that the total of all microdistillery cocktail room, retail and other accessory uses does not exceed the 25% or 15% limitation. Zoning districts: Not allowing taprooms and microdistillery cocktail rooms in the General Industrial district was intentional for the following reasons: 1. Businesses in the General Industrial district are typically closed in the evening hours. 2. There is a considerable amount of outside storage of equipment and materials in this district. The outside storage creates the potential for trespassing, property damage or theft, or personal harm. 3. Uses such as microdistillery cocktail rooms and taprooms are better located near similar uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, retail, and service uses. Such uses are typically located in visible and active areas which is consistent with the business park zoning district. 4. Taprooms and microdistillery cocktail rooms are allowed in the Industrial Park district because there are some commercial uses allowed in this district, and the Industrial Park districts are generally located in visible and well-travelled areas of the city such as 36th Street between Wooddale Ave and Hwy 100, and the Beltline area. 5. General Industrial sites typically also have limited parking compared to Industrial Park and Business Park districts, and many General Industrial sites would not support the parking demand. See the attached map for the location of the zoning districts and existing distilleries. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 4 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms Existing Distilleries: There are two distilleries in St. Louis Park, and a third distillery is under construction. One is operating in the Steel Toe premises. While it is a separate entity from Steel Toe Brewery, it cannot be issued a microdistillery cocktail room license at its present location due to State Statute and city licensing condition prohibiting co-location of taprooms and microdistillery cocktail rooms. It may be possible that the premises could be altered to create a separate business location for the distillery in which people would have to leave the distillery location and enter the tap room location, much like you would go from one store to another in a strip mall. The second distillery is Hennepin Distillery, which is located on Cambridge Street in the General Industrial district. As discussed above, under the proposed zoning regulations for microdistillery cocktail rooms, Hennepin could not be issued a microdistillery cocktail room license at its present location because it is located in the General Industrial district. Staff reached out to Hennepin to discuss the proposed ordinance, but as of the time of the drafting of this report, we have been unable to make contact. The third distillery, Wooden Eagle Distillery, is under construction. It is also located on Cambridge Street in the General Industrial district, and therefore will not be allowed to operate a cocktail room under the proposed ordinance. They, however, have stated that they have no intention to operate a cocktail room, and the proposed ordinance is acceptable to them. City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 5 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 6 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms ORDINANCE NO.____-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4 DEFINITIONS, 36-233 BP BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT, 36-243 I-P INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT, AND 36-244 I-G GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 16-04-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-233, 36-243, and 36-244 are hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. *** Sec. 36-4. Definitions. *** Microdistillery means a distillery producing premium, distilled spirits in total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. *** Microdistillery cocktail room. The on-sale sale of distilled liquor produced by the distiller on the premises of or adjacent to a microdistillery location owned by a distiller. *** Sec. 36-233. BP business park district. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any BP district may be used for one or more of the following uses if it has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 and complies with the performance standards as stated in Section 36-232 and the conditions stated below: *** 13. Microdistillery. The conditions are as follows: a. The microdistillery shall not produce more than 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. b. Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the microdistillery may be used for any combination of retail and a microdistillery cocktail room. *** Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an I-P district may be used for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-242 and those specified for the use permitted in this subsection: City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 7 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms *** (12) Microdistillery. The conditions are as follows: a. The microdistillery shall not produce more than 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. b. Up to 15% of the gross floor area of the microdistillery may be used for any combination of retail and a microdistillery cocktail room. *** Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district. *** (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an I-G district. *** (15) Microdistillery. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 16-04-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing February 17, 2016 First Reading March 14, 2016 Second Reading April 4, 2016 Date of Publication April 14, 2016 Date Ordinance takes effect April 29, 2016 Adopted by the City Council April 4, 2016 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8e) Page 8 Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Distilleries and Cocktail Rooms UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 17, 2016 – 6:08 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Ethan Rickert (youth member) STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Julie Grove, Gary Morrison OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, HKGi Planning Consultant C. Microdistillery & Microdistillery Cocktail Rooms – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 16-04-ZA Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The amendment is being proposed in connection with the recently amended City liquor license ordinance creating a license for microdistillery cocktail rooms and an off-sale license for microdistilleries. Commissioner Carper asked about the definition of co-location. Mr. Morrison responded that co-location is addressed in a couple of ways in the liquor license amendment. No single ownership can have both a taproom and a cocktail room. A taproom can be operated by a brewery within the premises or an adjacent property and the same holds true in a microdistillery in that building or adjacent property. He looks at it as a multi-tenant industrial facility (two businesses next to each other). In co-location a taproom would not be able to sell cocktails in the same facility. Mr. Morrison spoke about ownership groups and the liquor ordinance as far as who is getting a license. He said he would look at the ordinance to confirm this. The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Peilen made a motion recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to microdistilleries and microdistillery cocktail rooms. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item: 8f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2016 - 2017 Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc (LELS) Local #220 (Public Safety Dispatchers) Labor Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and Dispatch Union, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/17. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the Labor Agreement between the City and the Public Safety Dispatchers Union? SUMMARY: Dispatch is our third (of five) union group to agree upon settlement terms for 2016. After a number of negotiation sessions, staff is pleased to bring the summary of changes to this contract for 2016-2017:  Duration of 2 years (1/1/16 – 12/31/17).  Wage increase of 2.5% for 2016 (same as non-union and two settled unions Fire and Local 49).  Wage increase of 2.75% for 2017 (same as Local 49 union settlement).  Effective 1/1/16 and 1/1/17, the Employer contribution shall be set at the same rate as provided to other employees and eligible to participate in the Wellness Program.  Adjust training assignment pay to hourly rate to be consistent with other assignment pay.  Paid Parenting Leave Program was agreed upon midway through the last contract and is now added as a section to the contract.  New: Effective April 1, 2016, Dispatch employees are eligible for an additional $0.75 per hour for each hour worked alone, if scheduled by the Employer and for at least 2 consecutive hours. Note: Other cities in our market offer similar “work alone” pay.  New: Effective January 1, 2017 call back minimum hours increased from 2 to 3 if employee is called in to work due to an emergency. The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk. More detail is available upon request. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Items are included in the 2016 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Item No. 8f) Page 2 Title: 2016 - 2017 Law Enforcement Labor Services Local #220 (Public Safety Dispatchers) Labor Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 16-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC (LELS), LOCAL #220 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS JANUARY 1, 2016 – DECEMBER 31, 2017 WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act, and WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its Charter; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #______ between the City of St. Louis Park and LELS Local #220 Public Safety Dispatchers, effective January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2016 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk