HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/05/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 9, 2016
5:30 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS – Community Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 & 23, 2016
2. 6:35 p.m. Ranked Choice Voting
3. 7:35 p.m. Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
4. 8:05 p.m. Ten West End Planned Unite Development
5. 8:25 p.m. Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Parking Lots
6. 9:10 p.m. Climate Inheritance Resolution from iMatter
9:25 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:30 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. Candidate Filing Fees
8. Acceptance of Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
9. Update on SW Parcel at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (Project # 2012-0100)
10. City Hall/Police Station Sidewalk Improvements for Accessibility
11. Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 Liquor Ordinance Amendment Request
12. Series 2016 G.O. Bonds – Indoor/Outdoor Rec Center Projects
13. PLACE Concept Plan
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.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 and May 23, 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session on May 16, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on May
23, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the Special Study Session on May 16, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on May
23, 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – May 16 and 23, 2016
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 and May 23, 2016
MAY 16, 2016
6:45 p.m. – Special Study Session (Community Room)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Xcel Energy Franchise Agreement – Engineering (30 minutes)
The city’s pavement management program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues,
collected for us by both Xcel and CPE. Franchise fees can be collected by a utility when the
city has a franchise ordinance providing for this. The City and Xcel Energy have been
working on terms for a new franchise ordinance since early in 2012. In order to allow time to
work through the agreement language the City has been approving extensions of the
ordinance. The latest extension expires at the end of 2016. Staff and the City Attorney are
working with Xcel Energy on a longer term agreement to be approved by the end of the year.
The purpose of this study session item is to update the City Council on these discussions.
Written Reports
2. Project Update on 2 Rec Center Projects
MAY 23, 2016
5:30 p.m. – BBQ (Westwood Hills Nature Center)
6:15 p.m. – Study Session (Westwood Hills Nature Center)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Open Meeting Law Update – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
City Attorney Soren Mattick will be in attendance to review Open Meeting Law
requirements with a focus specifically on e-mail communications.
3. Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes)
We will review the master plan for the Westwood Hills Nature Center. This plan will guide
the future development and planning process for building needs, location and programming.
4. SWLRT Update – Joint Development Local Funding Commitment – Community
Development (30 minutes)
Update on the proposed SWLRT Joint Development project at the Beltline LRT Station and
discussion regarding the estimated local funding commitment necessary to facilitate transit
oriented, mixed use development at the station.
5. PLACE Update – Community Development (35 minutes)
PLACE will present its preliminary concept plans for the properties on either side of the
Wooddale LRT Station. City Council will be asked for their input.
Written Reports
6. Assessment Policy - Financial
7. Organics Recycling
8. April 2016 Financial Report
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Ranked Choice Voting
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This information is being provided in response
to a request from Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to further pursue the method of
Ranked Choice Voting for municipal elections? Does the City Council need additional
information on this topic?
SUMMARY: The City Council previously discussed this topic on several occasions and has again
requested information regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
May 22, 2006 - A joint meeting was held with the Charter Commission to discuss Instant
Run-off Voting and a presentation was given by Fair Vote Minnesota. City Attorney Roger
Knutson provided information regarding possible legal challenges associated with
implementation of an alternative voting method as well as the legal costs involved. The
consensus of the Council at that time was to postpone further discussion pending the outcome
of legislative changes regarding statutory authority.
April 26, 2010 - The City Council requested updated information regarding the legislative
status of the RCV method following implementation in Minneapolis in 2009. The
Minneapolis Director of Elections, Ginny Gelms, attended the meeting to provide an update
on the outcome of the 2009 RCV election, including administrative costs, spoiled ballot and
error rates, and implementation activities that occurred since 2006. Following discussion by
the Council, the consensus was that no changes should be made to the City’s voting method,
and to continue operating municipal elections in accordance with the regulations and
requirements outlined in the City Charter.
April 23, 2012 - The City Council requested information regarding RCV. Staff provided
basic information on the RCV method and the Ramsey County Election Manager, Joe
Mansky, answered questions and provided an overview of the 2011 RCV election held in St.
Paul. Following discussion, the consensus of the Council was to not pursue the RCV method
for municipal elections because it did not make sense from a financial or administrative
standpoint.
Hennepin County Election Manager, Ginny Gelms, will be in attendance to answer questions
regarding the RCV method and to address the role of the County in the implementation,
preparation, and conduct of the RCV method for municipal elections in St. Louis Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Ranked Choice Voting
DISCUSSION
What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked Choice Voting is a system by which voters rank candidates in order of preference on a
single ballot, ensuring that the winning candidate receives a majority of the votes where there are
more than two candidates on the ballot. Using this method, winners are determined by counting
first choices and determining if any candidates received a minimum number of votes needed to
win. In single-seat races, the minimum number of votes needed to win is 50% of the total votes
cast plus one (1) vote. If there is no candidate with a majority of first choices, a process of
eliminating candidates and considering subsequent choices begins. The candidate with the fewest
votes is defeated and those votes go to the second choices on each ballot. The votes are recounted
in rounds until one candidate achieves the required majority of votes cast. However, the
reallocation of votes does not guarantee the winner will win by over 50%.
Provisions regarding the conduct of elections are mandated by Federal Law, State Law, and City
Ordinances. Currently, there are no state standards for the RCV method of voting. Charter cities
in Minnesota have the authority to adopt the method of voting for municipal elections. Without
uniform standards, cities that choose to adopt the RCV method may adopt different “rules” in their
individual ordinances.
Is the City required to hold Municipal Primary Elections?
Minnesota Election Law states municipal primary elections may be held in any city. As a home
rule charter city, St. Louis Park has chosen to have the option for Primary elections according the
provisions set forth in Section 4.03 of the City Charter. School Districts also have the choice
whether or not to hold primary elections. The St. Louis Park School District has chosen not to
hold primaries for School Board elections.
Of the 45 cities in Hennepin County, only 11 cities have the option to hold municipal primary
elections (Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Dayton, Independence,
Minnetonka, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rogers, and St. Louis Park). The remaining 34 cities do not
hold municipal primaries. The traditional voting method is used by all cities in Hennepin County,
except for Minneapolis.
If the main concern is related to the cost and administration of municipal primary elections, the
City Council could ask the Charter Commission to consider amending the Charter to eliminate the
option for a municipal primary.
How many Municipal Primary Elections have been held in St. Louis Park?
9 Municipal Primary Elections have been required in St. Louis Park since 1975.
7 primaries involved only 1 or 2 wards
2 primaries were citywide
Municipal Primary Elections cost approximately $1,000 per precinct
Since 1975, only 3 Primary Candidates won with less than 50%
Do any other cities in Minnesota use the RCV method?
Minneapolis and St. Paul have implemented the RCV method for municipal elections. In 2015
voters in Duluth rejected a citywide referendum that called for a shift to the RCV method.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Ranked Choice Voting
How would the implementation of the RCV method affect School District elections?
Even though the City administers elections for the School District, implementation of the RCV
method for municipal elections would not affect the administration of School District elections. If
the City approved the RCV method, the ballot would have two different voting methods on the
same ballot. Voters would rank candidates for City offices on multiple columns and would vote
in one column for candidates for multiple seats on the School Board. This could, however, be
confusing for voters as they would be asked to use different voting methods on the same ballot.
What would need to be done implement the RCV method in St. Louis Park?
Charter amendment - could be done via ordinance if approved by the Charter Commission. If
the amendment is not approved by the Charter Commission, a referendum would be required.
Development of specific rules related to administration of the RCV method
Ordinance adoption
Education outreach to voters, election judges, and city staff
Hire additional staff including election judges, internal staff, and possible consultant
Identify funding source for additional costs to implement, including: legal consultations, ballot
programming, special ballot layout, ballot testing, ballot printing, public education outreach
(brochures, posters, videos, postcard mailings, website, and social media), additional staffing
(consultant, election judges, internal staff)
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: On January 25, 2016 the City Council directed that the topic of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses be placed on a study session agenda for further discussion.
Council requested staff to include past information including establishment size, zoning and
additional information on proximity and City of Hopkins 2014 change in liquor regulations.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to amend the off-sale liquor licensing
requirements?
SUMMARY: In 2015 the City Council discussed off-sale liquor licenses as follows:
January 12, 2015: City Council discussion and direction to staff to prepare a resolution
allowing time to study off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses, zoning, establishment size,
operations and locations.
January 20, 2015: City Council adopted Resolution 15-011 limiting the number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses giving time for City Council review. This resolution had an
expiration of December 31, 2015.
April 20, 2015: City Council reviewed zoning, business locations, regulations, public
safety, licenses per capita and data regarding existing establishments.
July 13, 2015: City Council continued discussion on establishment size and options
regarding limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor operations.
September 28, 2015: City Council discussed options for size limitations for off-sale
intoxicating liquor operations.
No action was taken and therefore the resolution adopted by the Council placing a hold on
the issuance of additional off-sale licenses expired on December 31, 2015.
On January 25, 2016, Council discussed off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and directed staff to
set aside time on an upcoming study session to discuss establishment size and proximity and obtain
information from the City of Hopkins on their 2014 change in liquor regulations. Requested
information along with previous staff reports are attached to this report for Council review and
discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Map of off-sale intoxicating liquor license locations and
zoning, Map of off-sale intoxicating liquor license locations with options for separation by
proximity, City of Hopkins information from 2014 regarding off-sale liquor establishments, City
Council report from January 25, 2016 that includes reports from 2015.
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In 2015, Council discussed off-sale intoxicating liquor establishment licenses,
physical size, location and zoning. On January 20, 2015 City Council adopted Resolution 15-011
limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses giving time for City Council review.
No action was taken and the moratorium expired on December 31, 2015.
On January 25, 2016, Council discussed off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing and asked that staff
set aside time at an upcoming study session to discuss establishment size and proximity and obtain
information from the City of Hopkins on their regulations. Below is the section from the Council
Minutes on this item:
Council Study Session Minutes of 1/25/16 on Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
Ms. Deno presented the staff report regarding off-sale liquor licenses. She recapped the
discussions on this matter over the last year.
Councilmember Mavity stated that State law has established guidelines for liquor stores, but these
guidelines do not govern our City. When looking at where C-2 zones are located in the City, the
zones are located in small neighborhoods. She stated she wants the Council to consider the effects
this has on small businesses. She explained that she doesn’t think a large liquor store will add
value to neighborhoods that define the City. She noted that Hopkins, with their Main Street, has
already instituted a size limitation of 5,000 square feet. For the above-stated reasons,
Councilmember Mavity proposed a size limitation of 5,000 square feet or less to keep the character
of the City.
Councilmember Miller stated his agreement of Councilmember Mavity’s proposal. He stated that
keeping the City’s character is a challenge for the City and is the Council’s goal. He asked how
the Council can ensure that the liquor stores are unique, independent, and build character as the
size limitation only addresses part of the problem.
Councilmember Sanger does not agree with limitations and stated she did not agree in
comparisons to state regulations on number of establishments and Minneapolis. Also, limiting the
size of the store is not fair, and the free market should be maintained.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he is willing to discuss this issue as a proximity issue. By limiting
size, smaller businesses cannot compete, because the larger stores would be grandfathered in.
For this reason, Councilmember Lindberg does not support a size limitation.
Councilmember Hallfin explained that he sees this issue from a few different angles. He stated
that size can and may be an issue in the future as a big box store could change the feel of the City.
He proposed a limitation of 9,000 square feet. Secondly, Councilmember Hallfin stated his
agreement with Councilmember Lindberg regarding the saturation of the area. He explained that
the City should discuss regulating the proximity of liquor stores to each other.
Councilmember Brausen suggested leaving the regulations as written without change as liquor is
a lawful product, and the market will regulate.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she doesn’t support raising the square footage to 9,000 as that
wouldn’t help the City.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
Councilmember Sanger stated she is pleased to hear about the character of the neighborhoods
and would appreciate support on architectural design of the buildings in the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Miller asked about zoning at the light rail stations, and Councilmember Mavity
explained there was an overlay to change the zoning of those areas. Ms. Deno explained how the
zoning works in reference to C-2 districts and PUD’s.
Mayor Spano stated he supports limiting the size of liquor stores. Although it is regulating liquor
stores differently than other businesses, he explained that the proposal does make sense and is
warranted. He stated that he supports a limitation of 6,000 square feet. Mayor Spano explained
that four councilmembers are now supporting a size limitation; therefore, the Council needs to
settle on a number. Councilmember Hallfin clarified that he was more concerned with the
proximity issue, than the size issue. Mayor Spano stated that if the size of the store is limited, then
proximity may not be an issue.
Councilmember Lindberg’s concern on the size limitation conversation is that the Council has
discussed this issue, but the comments are not based on specifics. Also, the Council’s decision is
going to limit competition. In order to receive his vote, good rationale needs to be identified to
support the size limitation. Councilmember Miller stated that the City Attorney made it clear as
to in order to proceed with a size limitation, a rationale needs to be identified. Councilmember
Sanger stated that Councilmember Mavity’s theory does not have a legal basis.
Councilmember Mavity stated that a number needs to be agreed upon, as there are four supporters.
Ms. Deno stated that proximity has also been brought up. She suggested staff draw up a proposal
to see what that looks like, if desired. Then the Council can discuss the specifics in reference to
size versus proximity, as proximity might answer both questions and would be easier to identify
and explain. Councilmember Mavity stated she doesn’t believe that proximity addresses the issue
of the City’s uniqueness.
Mayor Spano clarified that there are two issues, size and proximity. Ms. Deno will direct staff to
review information from Hopkins, gather data on proximity, and present their findings at a future
Study Session.
Attached in this report is the following information:
1. Map of off-sale intoxicating liquor license locations including current zoning regulations.
2. Map of off-sale intoxicating liquor license locations with concepts for separation by adding
proximity.
3. City of Hopkins information from 2014 regarding off-sale liquor establishments
4. City Council report from January 25, 2016 on off-sale intoxicating liquor that includes
reports from 2015 as follows: 1/12/15 Study Session, 1/20/15 Regular meeting approving
Resolution 15-011, 4/20/15 Study Session, 7/13/15 Study Session, 9/28/15 Study Session
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
14
13
12
11 10
15
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Intox (15)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
C2 Zoning District
May 2016
# Establishment # Establishment1 Lunds & Byerly's 9 Sam's Club2 Costo Wholesale #377 10 St. Louis Park Liquor3 Cub Liquor 11 Texas-Tonka Liquor4 Jenning's Liquor Store 12 Trader Joe's5 Knollwood Liquor 13 MD Liquors6 Top Ten Liquors 14 Westwood Liquors7 Liquor Boy 15 Target8 MGM Wine & Spirits
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 4
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
14
13
12
11 10
15
Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Establishment
C2 Zoning District
100 ft.
200 ft.
300 ft.
500 ft.
1,000 ft.
1,350 ft.
April 2016
# Establishment # Establishment1 Lunds & Byerly's 9 Sam's Club2 Costo Wholesale #377 10 St. Louis Park Liquor3 Cub Liquor 11 Texas-Tonka Liquor4 Jenning's Liquor Store 12 Trader Joe's5 Knollwood Liquor 13 MD Liquors6 Top Ten Liquors 14 Westwood Liquors7 Liquor Boy 15 Target8 MGM Wine & Spirits
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 5
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 6
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 7
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 8
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 9
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 10
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 11
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 12
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 13
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 14
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 15
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 16
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 17
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 18
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 19
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 20
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 21
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 22
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 23
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 24
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 25
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 26
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 27
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 28
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 29
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 30
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 31
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3) Title: Off-Sale Liquor LicensingPage 32
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In early January the City Council directed that this topic be
placed on a study session agenda for further discussion. Staff requests direction on any further
study, discussion or action the Council would like to take on this matter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City’s off-sale liquor licensing requirements be
amended to address the size, number, location or concentration of off-sale liquor establishments
in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: In early 2015 the City Council adopted a resolution which in effect placed a hold
or moratorium on the issuance of additional off-sale liquor licenses.
The City Council discussed this matter several times during 2015. This discussion was aided by
background information provided by staff, a copy of which is attached. During these discussions
several different viewpoints surfaced as follows:
Consideration should be given to limiting the physical size of off-sale establishments.
Consideration should be given to limiting the number, location or concentration of off-sale
establishments.
No changes needed to be made to the city’s off-sale licensing regulations.
Given that consensus was not reached on an appropriate course of action to take, per the resolution
adopted by the Council the hold on the issuance of additional off-sale licenses expired on
December 31, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Previous Staff Reports
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 33
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 12, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off Sale Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide Council with background information regarding off sale liquor licensing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need any other information regarding off sale
liquor licensing? Does Council want staff to take any other action regarding this matter?
SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and
locations of new off-sale liquor stores within St. Louis Park. At the Council meeting of
November 17, 2014, Council approved an off sale intoxicating liquor license for Target
Corporation making a total of 16 off sale intoxicating liquor licenses within St. Louis Park. As a
result of that action, the consensus of the Council was to discuss this matter at a future study
session.
Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor
establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the
number of licenses or employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated
areas or zoning districts within the city.
Staff has researched and attached the surrounding communities’ policies and restrictions for
issuance of off-sale liquor licenses.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Survey Results
Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Map of All Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening , City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 34
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Off Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off sale liquor licenses.
Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off
sale licenses includes 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of
the number of off sale licenses issued since 2000.
YEAR
Off-sale
Intox
(liquor stores)
Off-sale
3.2 malt liquor
(grocery stores)
Off-sale
Brewery
(growlers)
TOTAL
Off-sale
Licenses
2014 16 3 2 21
2013 15 3 2 20
2012 14 3 2 19
2011 14 4 2 20
2010 13 3 1 17
2009 12 3 1 15
2008 11 3 1 14
2007 13 3 16
2006 10 2 12
2005 10 2 12
2004 9 3 12
2003 9 4 13
2002 9 4 13
2001 9 4 13
2000 7 4 11
Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and
St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may
impose further restrictions and regulations for off sale licenses.
Limiting the number of liquor licensed establishments: Currently, State law and City Code do
not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off sale intoxicating liquor licensed
establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor
licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number
of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off sale intoxicating
liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license
for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of
the city.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 35
Minimum Distances:
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may
be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property
line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of
worship.
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states that a liquor store lot must be at least 1,000 feet
from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan
agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
• In the case of a shopping center of multi-use building, the distance shall be measured
from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store.
• If the Council wanted to pursue additional distance restrictions, it should be clearly
defined as to how it would be measured (ex. property line to property line).
Survey Results:
Staff previously presented research to council regarding off sale liquor limitations in surrounding
communities. At the time, Council did not come to consensus on the concept of limiting the
number or location of off-sale liquor establishments in the city.
A recent survey collected liquor information from suburbs with similarities and proximity to St.
Louis Park. Of the suburbs surveyed, Hopkins, New Hope, Minnetonka, Blaine, Burnsville, and
Brooklyn Park have limitations on the number of off-sale intoxicating licenses.
Public Safety Impact:
The police department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the
number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive
or negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no
direct effect on public safety.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 36
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license
currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft
Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations
New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year
Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental
entity or organization operating the school or church
Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of
neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft.
Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale
intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments.
St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50%
Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service.
Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 polulation. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to
report sales.
Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000
Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is
within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the
"Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in
2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by
McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of
Westburn first addition.
Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating
liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually.
Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations.
Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations.
Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches
Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools
Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no
off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches
Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches.
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 37
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 38
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lake
R
d
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Brewery - Growlers (2)
Off Sale 3.2 - Grocery Stores (3)
Off Sale Intox - Liquor Stores (16)
January 2015
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 39
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
On Sale Intox (26)
On Sale Club (2)
On Sale 3.2 & Wine (15)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale 3.2 (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Off Sale Intox (16)
January 2015
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 40
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 20, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution limiting the number of Off-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor Licenses issued in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to limit off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses to the current number and locations while it studies the issue of permanent license
limitations and other regulations?
SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and
locations of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments within St. Louis Park. Discussion took
place at the Study Session meeting of January 12, 2015 with consensus of the council to direct
staff to prepare a proposed resolution to limit the number of off-sale liquor stores to the present
number and location while the council further studies the issue.
The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and St. Louis Park City Code of
Ordinances. Minn Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and
regulations. Additionally, Minn. Statutes 340A.413, Subd 5 (2), specifically states that the
number of off-sale licenses shall be determined by the city council for each municipality.
Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor
establishments in St. Louis Park. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by
resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or
zoning districts within the city. There are currently 16 off-sale intoxicating licenses.
The resolution prepared by City Attorney is attached to this report. The proposed resolution sets
the maximum number of off-sale intoxicating licenses at the current sixteen. The only new off-
sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the continued operation of a liquor
store by a new owner at a currently licensed location utilizing the existing licensed premises. The
resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending and future
applications, and shall expire on December 31, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for off sale intoxicating liquor
licenses include $500 for the police background investigation and $380 for the license fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Resolution
January 12 Study Session Council Report
Survey Results
Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Map of All Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 41
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
A RESOLUTION LIMITING NUMBER OF OFF-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES
WHEREAS, the current 16 licensed off-sale liquor stores in the City represent a much
higher number of such establishments on a per capita basis than neighboring and other comparable
cities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has regulatory concerns about this relatively high number
and location of off-sale liquor establishments in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interest of the City and
its citizens to engage in more detailed studies to determine if additional regulations are needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also believes that it is appropriate and in the best interest of
the City and its citizens to limit the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the current
number of issued licenses at this time while the City Council studies the issue; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State law, City Code Section 3-72 allows the City
Council by resolution to restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. Pursuant to St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-72, the total number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses issued in the City will be restricted to sixteen (16).
2. The only new off-sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the
continued operation of a liquor store by a new owner at a currently licensed location
utilizing the existing licensed premises.
3. This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending and
future applications, and shall expire on December 31, 2015.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 42
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: April 20, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide Council with information regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: What other information would Council like to review regarding
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing? Is the Council ready to take action on this matter?
SUMMARY: On January 12, 2015, Council had a discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to direct staff to
prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic.
On January 20, 2015, Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an expiration date of
December 31, 2015.
At the discussion this evening, staff will present data on this topic as follows:
• Map of business locations and zoning regulations.
• Licensing concepts - new category such as accessory to grocery.
• Information on current establishment size.
• Discussion regarding distance between liquor stores.
City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in
St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or
employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution,
restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts
within the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Survey Results
Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 43
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Off-Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off-sale liquor license
categories in St. Louis Park. Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off-sale
“intoxicating” liquor license. Other off-sale licenses include 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery
store or brewery. Below is the history of the number of off-sale licenses issued since 2000:
YEAR
Off-Sale
Intox
(liquor stores)
Off-Sale
3.2 Malt Liquor
(grocery stores)
Off-Sale
Brewery
(growlers)
TOTAL
Off-Sale
Licenses
2014 16 3 2 21
2013 15 3 2 20
2012 14 3 2 19
2011 14 4 2 20
2010 13 3 1 17
2009 12 3 1 15
2008 11 3 1 14
2007 13 3 16
2006 10 2 12
2005 10 2 12
2004 9 3 12
2003 9 4 13
2002 9 4 13
2001 9 4 13
2000 7 4 11
Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and
St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statute 340A.509 states a local authority may
impose further restrictions and regulations for off-sale licenses.
Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments?
No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the
power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute
340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over
100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other
cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 44
What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City?
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be
issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship.
(Adopted June 2007)
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The
liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,
currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
(Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are
licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have
any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State
Department of Commerce at this time.
• In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013)
What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall or
Shopping area
Premises
CURRENT
Approx Sq Ft
Liquor
Violations past
5 years
Year Business
Began
Total Years
in business
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36
Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14
Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wines 5630 West 36th Street Harmony Vista Shopping
Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008 7
Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69
Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48
Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9
Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West End 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3
MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1
Sam's Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29
Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6
St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka BlvdMinnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14
Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1
Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53
Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10
Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10
Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52
Liquor Stores CLOSED
Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos
Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business
Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 45
Is there any comment from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? The
Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number
of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or
negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no
direct effect on public safety.
Why are there a number of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments outside of the C2 Zoning
District? The “Liquor Store” land use designation was created in 2013, and is allowed only in
the C-2 Zoning District. Prior to 2013, liquor stores were considered “Retail” and were allowed
in any zoning district where retail was allowed. As a result of the 2013 zoning change, liquor
stores that existed in zoning districts other than the C-2 District became legally non-conforming
(grandfathered).
Can we add additional licensing categories for liquor? The State of Minnesota regulates liquor
licensing by statute under Chapter 340A Liquor. We contacted the State of MN on adding
additional license categories. The State of MN will issue a license based on categories listed in
the statute. We were informed that if a city wants to break out a classification for licensing
purposes they can do so, and the State of MN would continue to recognize them only as
categories in the statues.
For example, if the City issued the licenses below, the State of MN would continue to recognize
them as off-sale intoxicating liquor, and the City could further define their license as follows:
• Off-Sale Intoxicating – Class A
City of St. Louis Park off-sale intoxicating liquor license.
• Accessory to Grocery – Class B
New category of off-sale intoxicating liquor with adjacent grocer same company, licenses
for liquor stores that are ancillary or accessory to a retail food use. The following six
establishments hold intoxicating liquor off-sale licenses and in concept would meet this
definition: Byerlys, Cub West End, Costco, Sam’s Club, Trader Joes and Target
Knollwood (license approved, not in operation).
• Limited Beer/Wine – Class C
New category of off-sale intoxicating liquor for St. Louis Park limited to beer and wine
(further definition needed in this category; for instance, not allowing spirited wine).
Why would we consider adding different levels of licensing for off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses? This type of concept could be used if the Council would want to set limits on off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses. For example, Council could set a limit of Class A (free standing off-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses) and allow different levels or no limit on Class B or C.
What are the number of establishments and other requirements in other cities? Attached is a
listing of this information. Over the past year, the City of Burnsville has been researching this
topic. Currently they have limits on number of off-sale licenses. Staff contacted the City of
Burnsville, and per public input and Council discussion, their staff is drafting an amendment to
the city’s liquor ordinance that would remove the city’s current cap on the number of off-sale
liquor licenses it issues. The proposed amendment is tentatively scheduled for discussion at their
Economic Development Commission on May 13 and scheduled for adoption by their City
Council on June 2.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 46
Can we add language in our code to provide a minimum separation between intoxicating off-sale
liquor establishments? Yes. First we would need to know what type of separation is desired and
if this is allowed under law. Also, a definition would need to be created on distance limitations.
Can we add language in code to limit the size of an intoxicating liquor establishment? Yes. A
definition would need to be created on size limit. The chart on page three lists the approximate
square footage of the licensed establishments.
Next Steps
At the City Council Study Session on April 20, 2015, we want to allow time for discussion to
determine if we have a problem with our current regulations regarding off-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses. To do this, we will review data in the report and discuss the following:
• Is there any additional information needed?
• Does the C2 zoning that was put in place in 2013 along with other zoning requirements
provide adequate regulation?
• Are there any changes that Council would like to implement?
• If there is no additional information requested or further study needed, does the Council
want to remove the temporary limit on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores set by resolution
on January 20, 2015?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 47
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license
currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft
Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations
New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year
Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental
entity or organization operating the school or church
Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of
neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft.
Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale
intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments.
St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50%
Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service.
Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 population. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to
report sales.
Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000
Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is
within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the
"Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in
2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by
McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of
Westburn first addition.
Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating
liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually.
Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations.
Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations.
Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches
Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools
Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no
off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches
Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches.
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 48
CITY Population
Total
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
OFF Sale Intox
(liquor stores)
per capita
Other limitations
Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600
Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects
2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 49
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
116
15
14
13
12 11
10
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Intox (16)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
C2 Zoning District
March 2015
# Establishment # Establishment1 Byerly's-St. Louis Park 9 MGM Wine & Spirits2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 Sam's Club #63183 Cub Liquor 11 St. Louis Park Liquor4 Four Firkins 12 Texas-Tonka Liquor5 Jennings' Liquor Store 13 Trader Joe's #7106 Knollwood Liquor 14 Vintage Wine & Spiritz7 Liquor Barrel 15 Westwood Liquors8 Liquor Boy 16 Target
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
Page 50
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 13, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide the City Council with requested information regarding the establishment of size
limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to create size limitations on off-sale
intoxicating liquor establishments? What other information would the Council like to review
regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing?
SUMMARY:
• On January 12, 2015, the City Council had a discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the Council to direct staff
to prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study
this topic.
• On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an
expiration date of December 31, 2015.
• On April 20, 2015 the City Council discussed this topic and reviewed zoning, business
locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data regarding existing
establishments. At this meeting, Council directed staff to review information on limiting
store square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation.
City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in
St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or
employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution,
restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts
within the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 51
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the April 20, 2015 Study Session, the Council continued discussion on
off-sale intoxicating liquor license, reviewed zoning, business locations, regulations, public
safety, licenses per capita, and data on existing establishments. At this meeting the Council
directed staff to review information on limiting establishment square footage and research legal
issues related to such a regulation.
Can a city create limitations on square footage (size) of off-sale intoxicating liquor
establishments?
Staff consulted City Attorney Soren Mattick on this question. The research focused on a city’s
ability to regulate square footage requirements utilizing the controls provided to the City through
zoning and liquor licensing. The City Attorney stated size limitations can be established with
development of certain criteria:
• The Council would need to establish a sound rationale for the regulation for the maximum
square footage that is being established. Ideally the Council would describe how the
regulation benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community.
• If a size limitation is established, criteria will need to be established regarding how
potentially existing licensed businesses larger than the new limit would be allowed to
continue operation.
o Decide if existing licensed businesses that are over the new size limit can continue
operation at that size, but not expand.
o Decide if a new owner will be able to operate at an existing licensed business location?
o Decide if an existing licensed business with a store that exceeds the new size limit will be
able to relocate and maintain the same size store?
• If a size limitation is established, the ordinance would need to set rules for how requests for
expansions from existing licensed businesses will be handled.
o The code could allow an existing business that is below the size limit to expand up to the
size limit.
o The code could prohibit expansions of existing licensed businesses that are at or above
the size limit.
• Any size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are more appropriate to the liquor
licensing code, rather than the zoning code.
Are there examples of size limitations in other cities?
Staff has found a couple examples through its research and inquiries. With more time and effort,
staff would likely be able to identify other communities that also limit the size of these
establishments. One local example is in Hopkins, which very recently established an ordinance
limiting the size of off-sale liquor stores to 5,000 square feet.
Victoria, British Columbia has city policies limiting the size of liquor stores to 2,200 square feet,
but has recent examples where they have considered or allowed stores that are 7,200 to 13,800
square feet in size contrary to the policy.
What should be the criteria for the size limitation?
In the case of liquor compliance issues in St. Louis Park, there is not a pattern of additional
violations in larger liquor stores than smaller stores. Which size threshold, if any, would be most
appropriate has not been identified by staff. Council may want to review the existing liquor store
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 52
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall
or Shopping area
Premises
CURRENT
approx Sq Ft
Liquor
Violations past
5 years
Year Business
Began
Total Years
in business
1 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14
2 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7
near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1
3 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69
4 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10
5 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10
6 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6
7 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14
8 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52
9 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9
10 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53
11 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48
12 Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36
13 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1
14 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3
15 Sams Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29
Liquor Stores CLOSED
Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos
Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business
Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1
Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wine 5630 West 36th Street
Harmony Vista
Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008-2015 7
sizes and also consider how many businesses would be at or above any proposed size threshold.
To that end, staff provided a table sorted by size from smallest to largest (see below).
Potential size limitation options:
1. 10,560 square foot limitation (current size of largest establishment).
2. 5,000 square foot limitation (average square footage of current establishments 4,582).
3. Other
If a size limitation is established, can a waiver be granted?
Staff does not recommend including waivers to allow exceptions to the rule if the liquor
ordinance is changed and includes size limitations. Instead, Council would need to take formal
action to amend the ordinance to allow larger stores. Having a waiver would defeat the purpose
of the ordinance.
What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 53
What is the history of the number of Off-Sale Liquor Licenses?
There are three different types of off-sale liquor license categories in St. Louis Park. Only an
exclusive liquor store can be issued an off-sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off-sale
licenses include 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of the
number of off-sale licenses issued since 2000:
YEAR
Off-Sale
Intox
(liquor stores)
Off-Sale
3.2 Malt Liquor
(grocery stores)
Off-Sale
Brewery
(growlers)
TOTAL
Off-Sale
Licenses
2014 16 3 2 21
2013 15 3 2 20
2012 14 3 2 19
2011 14 4 2 20
2010 13 3 1 17
2009 12 3 1 15
2008 11 3 1 14
2007 13 3 16
2006 10 2 12
2005 10 2 12
2004 9 3 12
2003 9 4 13
2002 9 4 13
2001 9 4 13
2000 7 4 11
Is there any comment from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the
number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive
or negative. Police Management reviewed this question along with store size and stated the
current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety.
Why are there off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments outside of the C2 Zoning District?
The “Liquor Store” land use designation was created in 2013, and is currently allowed only in
the C-2 Zoning District by the zoning code. Prior to 2013, liquor stores were considered “Retail”
and were allowed in any zoning district where retail was allowed. As a result of the 2013 zoning
change, liquor stores that existed in zoning districts other than the C-2 District became legally
non-conforming (grandfathered).
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 54
Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments?
No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the
power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute
340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over
100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other
cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city.
What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City?
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be
issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship.
(Adopted June 2007)
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The
liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,
currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
(Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are
licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have
any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State
Department of Commerce at this time.
• In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013)
NEXT STEPS:
• July 13 continued discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
• If there is no additional information requested or further study needed, does the Council want
to take action on this item or remove the temporary limit on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores
set by resolution on January 20, 2015.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 55
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lake
R
d
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Off Sale Intox (16)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Sexually Oriented Business
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
Pay Day Loan
C2 Zoning District
March 2015
Existing Regulations:Liquor store license regulation: No initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place ofworship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place ofworship. (Place of Worship means church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other facility used for religious services.)
Zoning regulation for Liquor stores. The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. In the case of a shopping center ofmulti-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store.
Zoning districts. Liquor stores are allowed in the C2 General Commercial District only.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 56
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to
provide the City Council with requested information regarding the establishment of size
limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to create size limitations on off-sale
intoxicating liquor establishments? What other information would the Council like to review
regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing?
SUMMARY:
• On January 12, 2015, the City Council discussed off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and
locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the Council to direct staff to prepare a
resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic.
• On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an
expiration date of December 31, 2015.
• On April 20, 2015 the City Council discussed this topic and reviewed zoning, business
locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data regarding existing
establishments. At this meeting, Council directed staff to review information on limiting
store square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation.
• On July 13, 2015 the City Council discussed size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor
operations, and directed staff to return with options.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 57
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the July 14, 2015 Study Session the Council continued the discussion
regarding limiting square footage of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments and legal issues
related to such a regulation. At this meeting, Council directed staff to prepare options on size
limitations.
How does a city create limitations on square footage (size) of off-sale intoxicating liquor
establishments?
Staff consulted City Attorney Soren Mattick on this question. The research focused on a city’s
ability to regulate square footage requirements utilizing the controls provided to the city through
zoning and liquor licensing. The City Attorney stated size limitations can be established with
development of certain criteria:
• The Council would need to establish a sound rationale for the regulation for the maximum
square footage that is being established. Ideally the Council would describe how the
regulation benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community.
• Any size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are more appropriate to the liquor
licensing code, rather than the zoning code.
What are some options for size limitation?
Potential size limitation options:
1. 10,560 square foot limit (current size of largest establishment)
2. 5,000 square foot limit (rounded up), average square footage of establishments is 4,768
3. No change
What needs to be done to set size limitations; what are examples?
In order to set a square foot limitation, size limit needs to be determined and criteria need to be
developed. Below are some examples of criteria that could be used for size limitation:
• First, the Council should determine if it wants criteria regulating establishment size. If yes,
the Council could then set the limitation as follows: at the average square footage of current
establishments or at the maximum square footage of the current business (if over the new
limitation) or other limit.
• Set up information on limitation of square footage for off-sale liquor business as part of the
criteria set out in our liquor license.
• Provide rationale for the regulation such as:
o Limiting this would support small businesses for off sale intoxicating liquor.
o Smaller retailers typically are local. Smaller businesses typically are more unique,
not generic, and add to the character of the business community.
o Other as determined by Council.
• Finally, if a size limit is put in place, no existing business could exceed the limit when
building or remodeling (additional square footage could not be added if grandfathered in at
existing square footage maximum).
Are there examples of size limitations in other cities?
Staff has found a couple examples through its research and inquiries. One local example is in
Hopkins, which very recently established an ordinance limiting the size of off-sale liquor stores
to 5,000 square feet. Victoria, BC, Canada has city policies limiting the size of liquor stores to
2,200 square feet, but has recent examples where they have considered or allowed stores that are
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 58
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor
Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall
or Shopping area
Premises
CURRENT
approx Sq Ft
Liquor
Violations past
5 years
Year Business
Began
Total Years
in business
1 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14
2 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7
near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1
3 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69
4 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10
5 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10
6 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6
7 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14
8 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52
9 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9
10 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53
11 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48
12 Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36
13 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1
14 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3
15 Sams Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29
Liquor Stores CLOSED
Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos
Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5
Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business
Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1
Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wine 5630 West 36th Street
Harmony Vista
Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008-2015 7
7,200 to 13,800 square feet in size contrary to the policy. Additional research can be conducted
on this if Council desires more to be done.
If a size limitation is established, can a waiver be granted?
No waivers could be granted. Council would need to take formal action to amend the ordinance
to change this size limitation if put in place.
What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 59
Are there any comments from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores?
The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the
number and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or
negative. Police Management reviewed this question along with store size and stated the current
number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety.
Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments?
No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of
off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the
power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council
may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute
340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over
100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other
cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city.
What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City?
• City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be
issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship.
(Adopted June 2007)
• Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The
liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop,
currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business.
(Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are
licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have
any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State
Department of Commerce at this time.
• In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing
Page 60
Excelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Minnetonka Blvd
Lake StLouisiana AveWo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
36th St W
Cedar Lak
e
R
d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
115
14
13
12
11 10
On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments
Liquor Establishments
Off Sale Intox (15)
On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1)
Off Sale 3.2 (3)
Places of Worship
Private/Public Schools
Fire Arm Sales
Pawn Shop
C2 Zoning District
September 2015
# Establishment # Establishment
1 Lunds & Byerly's - St. Louis Park 9 Sam's Club #6318
2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 St. Louis Park Liquor
3 Cub Liquor 11 Texas-Tonka Liquor
4 Jennings' Liquor Store 12 Trader Joe's #710
5 Knollwood Liquor 13 Vintage Wine & Spiritz
6 Liquor Barrel 14 Westwood Liquors
7 Liquor Boy 15 Target
8 MGM Wine & Spirits
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 3)
Title: Off-Sale Liquor Licensing Page 61
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Ten West End Planned Unit Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. Staff and representatives from Ryan
Companies will be providing an overview of the office concept plan for Phase IV of the overall
Central Park West Planned Unit Development.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff has attached the “Offices at West End” Concept Book.
Is this design consistent with the approved Central Park West office concept?
Does the Council have any concerns with the current design?
SUMMARY: The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies are preparing a Planned Unit
Development application for a 11-story, 335,710 square foot Class A office building at 1601 Utica
Avenue S. The building is Phase IV of the Central Park West Planned Unit Development and will
construct the building and one half of a planned parking structure, providing 1,200 stalls.
Key features include approximately 5,000 square feet of shared outdoor amenity space, 3,500
square feet of covered retail at ground level, a fitness facility, public locker rooms, and an indoor
bike room that can be accessed from the linear civic space. The design of the building incorporates
mostly Class I materials and provides a modern take on the durability of a brick warehouse
building.
This development has received a lot of attention in the market place. A press release is planned for
Friday, May 6 to coincide with the Council agenda publication.
NEXT STEPS: Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies intend to submit an application in summer
of 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Design Concept Book
Previous Plan
Prepared by: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Discussion Item: 4
1
DRAWING TITLE
OFFICES AT WEST END
DESIGN CONCEPT BOOK | 5.3.2016
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 2
2
37,616± SF
PROPOSED BUILDING
54,879± SF
PROPOSED BUILDING
STATE HWY. NO. 100UTICA AVENUE SUTICA AVENUE Sce Development\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\SITE PLAN - West End Office.dwgSITE NO
LEGEND
CIVIL SITE PLAN
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 3
3
37,616± SF
PROPOSED BUILDING
54,879± SF
PROPOSED BUILDING
STATE HWY. NO. 100UTICA AVENUE SUTICA AVENUECIVIL SITE PLAN
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 4
4
SITE PLAN - PHASE 1
LILAC DRIVE SUTICA AVENUE SNOT TO SCALE
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 5
5
EXTERIOR EXPRESSION
HIGHLIGHT ENTRY DRAMATIC SKYLINE PRESENCE UNIQUE TOP LEVEL
FRAME WITH INFILL BREAK IN MASSING
GROUP 2 FLOORS TOGETHERMIXTURE OF MATERIALS
PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 6
6
EXTERIOR EXPRESSION
MODERN TAKE ON BRICK FACADE WOOD SOFFIT
SHARED OUTDOOR SPACE
COVERED RETAIL AREA ON PARK
DRAMATIC LIGHTING
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 7
7
INTERIOR EXPRESSION
BLUR LINE BETWEEN RETAIL AND LOBBY
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 8
8
INTERIOR EXPRESSION
VISIBLE ACTIVITY IN LOBBY
MULTI-LEVEL LOBBY
VISUAL CONNECTION TO PHASE II THIRD WORKSPACE “WE SPACE”
BIKE ROOM
GRAND STAIRCASE MIX OF WARM LOBBY MATERIALS
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 9
9
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 10
10
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 11
11
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 12
12
OFFICE PLAN - LEVEL 1
1
A
2
B
C
D
3 4 6 7 85
34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"47' - 6"30' - 0"47' - 6"9
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
RETAIL
3,540 SF
OFFICE
2,140 SF
FITNESS
2,220 SF
BIKE ROOM960 SFTRASH / RECYCLE400 SFLOADING / STAGING1,510 SFMECHANICAL / BUILDING SERVICES730 SFLOADING DOCK
OFFICE
4,530 SFPLAZA ENTRY
PARK ENTRY
BUILDING DIRECTORYMEN’SBATHROOM340 SFMEN’SLOCKER340 SFWOMEN’SBATH340 SFWOMEN’SLOCKER340 SFOFFICE
4,630 SF
LEVEL 1
GROSS
RENTABLE
OFFICE USABLE
RETAIL USABLE
36,800 SF
35,310 SF
11,300 SF
3,540 SF
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 13
13
OFFICE PLAN - LEVEL 2
1
A
2
B
C
D
3 4 6 7 85
34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"47' - 6"30' - 0"47' - 6"9
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
OFFICE
5,600 SF
PRE-FUNCTION
SPACE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
5,800 SF
(REQUIRES 2ND EXIT)
MECHANICAL
ENCLOSURE
SKYWAY
570 SF
SMALL
CONFERENCE
570 SF
LARGE
CONFERENCE
1,910 SF
OFFICE
4,310 SF
WOMEN’S
BATHROOM
390 SF
MEN’S
BATHROOM
390 SF
OFFICE
8,520 SF
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
LEVEL 2
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
SKYWAY
27,920 SF
26,360 SF
18,420 SF
5,800 SF
570 SF
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 14
14
OFFICE PLAN - LEVEL 5-10 SINGLE TENANT
1
A
2
B
C
D
3 4 6 7 85
34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"47' - 6"30' - 0"47' - 6"9
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
LEVEL 5-10 TYPICAL
SINGLE TENANT
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
30,320 SF
28,300 SF
27,150 SF
250 SF
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 15
15
OFFICE PLAN - LEVEL 11
1
A
2
B
C
D
3 4 6 7 85
34' - 9 1/2"
34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"34' - 0"47' - 6"30' - 0"47' - 6"127' - 3"9
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”OUTDOOR AMENITY2,950 SFLEVEL 11
SINGLE TENANT
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
26,660 SF
25,030 SF
23,880 SF
2,950 SF
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 16
16
DRAWING TITLE BUILDING STACKING DIAGRAM
LEVEL 11
SINGLE TENANT
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
26,660 SF
25,030 SF
23,880 SF
2,950 SF
LEVEL 5-10 TYPICAL
SINGLE TENANT
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
30,320 SF
28,300 SF
27,150 SF
250 SF
LEVEL 3-4 TYPICAL
MULTI TENANT
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
30,320 SF
28,300 SF
25,000 SF
250 SF
LEVEL 2
GROSS
RENTABLE
USABLE
OUTDOOR AMENITY
SKYWAY
27,920 SF
26,360 SF
18,420 SF
5,800 SF
570 SF
OFFICE
LEVEL 1
GROSS
RENTABLE
OFFICE USABLE
RETAIL USABLE
36,800 SF
35,310 SF
11,300 SF
3,540 SF
LEVEL 12
MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE
GROSS 1,770 SF
CONFERENCE
OUTDOOR
AMENITY
OUTDOOR
AMENITY
OUTDOOR
AMENITY
OUTDOOR
AMENITY
SKYWAY
FROM
PARKING
RETAIL
OFFICE
DOUBLE
HEIGHT
LOBBY
FITNESS
BIKE
ROOMTOTAL
BUILDING GSF
335,710 SF
TOTAL
RENTABLE SF
315,280 SF
LEVELS
ABOVE GRADE
11
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 17
17
SITE PLAN - PHASE 2
LILAC DRIVE SUTICA AVENUE SNOT TO SCALE
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 18
18
CONCEPTUAL PHASE II MASSING
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 19
19
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 20
LILAC DRIVESTATE HIGHWAY 100WOONERFWAYZATA BLVDRESIDENTIALUTICA AVENORTHOFFICELINEARPARKBUS TURNAROUNDProperty LineBike Service AreaGateway to Golden Valley KioskGatheringAreaPark GatewayMonumentOpen Recreation“Green”DECIDUOUS TREESORNAMENTAL TREESEVERGREEN TREESSHRUB BEDSSOUTHOFFICEPARKING STRUCTURERESIDENTIALHOTELLEGENDEXISTING HEALTH PARTNERS gggaaaaayyytttttttWEST END DEVELOPMENTSt. Louis Park, MN / Golden Valley, MNDecember 201425’050’Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4) Title: Ten West End Planned Unit DevelopmentPage 21
3Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNBirdseye View - Developed SiteOVERALL KEY SITE DESIGN PRINCIPLES• tŽƌŬĐůŽƐĞůLJǁŝƚŚ^ƚ>ŽƵŝƐWĂƌŬͬ'ŽůĚĞŶsĂůůĞLJ^ƚĂī• Complete the extension of the shops at West End Mixed Use ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ• ZĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨŽĸĐĞĨƌŽŵϭ͘ϭMillion SF ;ĂƐŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚͿto ϳϬϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&͕ƚŚƵƐƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐͬƚƌŝƉƐĂŶĚŐƌĞĂƚůLJƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĂŵƉsize• WƌŽǀŝĚĞŚŝŐŚͲƋƵĂůŝƚLJ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚWƵďůŝĐZĞĂůŵĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͗ դ ĞŶƚƌĂůWĂƌŬWƵďůŝĐŵĞŶŝƚLJ դhƟĐĂŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ džƚĞŶƐŝŽŶ դ EĞƚǁŽƌŬŽĨƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶͬďŝŬĞĨƌŝĞŶĚůLJƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͕ĐŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚƐ͕ŐĂƌĚĞŶƐĂŶĚĂŵĞŶŝƚLJƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐ• ƌĞĂƚĞĂƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞŵŽĚĞůĨŽƌƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐϳϬϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨKĸĐĞƐƉĂĐĞ͕ϯϲϯZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚϭϱϬ,ŽƚĞůƌŽŽŵƐ• WƌŽǀŝĚĞϯйĂīŽƌĚĂďůĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂƚϲϬйD/Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4) Title: Ten West End Planned Unit DevelopmentPage 22
| 7Central Park West - Preliminary PUD St. Louis Park / Golden Valley, MNOctober 17, 20146 | Birdseye View - Looking WestBirdseye View - Looking East
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Ten West End Planned Unit Development Page 23
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Parking Lots
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. This report is a continuation of a several
month long process the Council has been going thru to update the City’s assessment policies. Once
all areas have been reviewed by Council, staff will bring back an overall Assessment Policy for
City Council approval.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to change how we fund certain
improvement projects? Please inform staff of any question or concerns you might have regarding
this report.
SUMMARY: The City’s assessment policy was last updated in 2000; prior to that the policy was
updated more frequently. The following improvement areas are ones that have historically been
assessed in the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter- Discussed on 11/9/15
2. Alley Paving- Discussed on 11/23/15
3. Sidewalks- Discussed on 1/19/16
4. Street lighting- Discussed on 1/19/16
5. Unimproved Street Maintenance- Discussed on 1/19/16
6. Administrative items: Report on 3/28/16
Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Mains and Services
Watermain and Services
Fire Sprinkler Systems
Delinquent Charges (nuisances, tree removal, weed removal, curb / gutter repair and
responding to fire alarms)
7. Municipal Parking Lots- Discussed in this Report
Since the last update in 2000, Council direction, improvement costs and infrastructure needs have
changed in a number of the areas covered by this policy. Staff from Assessing, Finance, Fire,
Inspections, Operations, and Engineering have been reviewing this policy and updating it so that
it is current and consistent with legal guidance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The recommended assessment policy for the
various improvements will have funding implications. Information regarding financial impacts
will be discussed at the June 13 Study Session.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion, Location Map, Individual Parking Lot Site Plans
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director; Mark Hanson, Public
Works Superintendent; Jeff Stevens, Operations Manager; Phillip Elkin, Sr.
Engineering Project Manager; Cory Bultema, City Assessor; Steve Heintz,
Finance Supervisor, Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Parking Lots
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The city owns and operates 10 municipal parking lots. These lots are located
throughout the City and are not adjacent to City buildings. Their primary use is for park and ride
or private property parking. Annual and seasonal maintenance are performed by Operations.
Below is a list of the lots that are discussed as a part of this report. Attached is a map showing the
locations of each lot, a site plan for each lot, and an inventory of the lots.
Parking Lot Name Address Year
Built
Rating
27th St & Louisiana Ave 2701 Louisiana Ave 1967 Poor
36th St & Wooddale Ave* 3575 Wooddale Ave 1976 Poor
Alabama Ave & Excelsior Blvd 6000 Excelsior Blvd 1973 Poor
Bohn Welding Lot 6570 Lake Street 1972 Poor
Lake Street Alley Parking Lot Behind 6400-6600 Lake Street 1972 Fair
Georgia Ave Lot 6470 Lake Street 1972 Fair
Gorham Lot 3301 Gorham Ave 1964 Poor
Louisiana Park & Ride (N) 7201 Minnetonka Blvd 1983 Poor
Louisiana Park & Ride (S) 3016 Louisiana Ave S 1983 Poor
Lake St & Walker St 6534 Lake Street 1963 Poor
* Staff does not recommend the reconstruction of the 36th and Wooddale lot, it is adjacent to
the Wooddale LRT station, and will likely be redeveloped in the next 5 to 10 years.
The City’s current policy for construction and reconstruction of the lots is to assess 100% of the
cost to reconstruct the lots to the benefitting property owners. Some additional background.
1. These lots were constructed 30- 40 years ago.
2. The construction costs for all of the lots, with the exception of the Louisiana Park and Ride
(N & S) lots, were paid for through assessments to adjacent property owners.
3. The Louisiana Park and Ride (N & S) lots are mainly used by transit users. It is staff’s
opinion that there is not a nearby property owner that would benefit from the parking
provided at this location.
4. There is no formal agreement between the property owner and the City for the use of these
lots to meet code parking requirements. However, when there is a change to a tenant or
land use at one of the buildings that were originally assessed for lot construction, Zoning
staff does credit that property the number of stalls for which they paid an assessment.
5. It has been our past practice to not reserve parking spaces in these lots. What this means
is that while we may have assessed property owner X for 10 stalls we do not assign 10
stalls to property owner X.
6. The pavement condition for most of these lots is poor and they are in need of
reconstruction.
7. It is estimated that the total cost to reconstruct these lots $1,504,242. Staff does not
recommend the reconstruction of the 36th St & Wooddale Ave lot. This reduces the
estimated total reconstruction cost to $1,125,193.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) – Parking Lots
Staff has identified the following as the options to proceed with addressing these lots:
Option 1: Reconstruct the lots using City Funds.
The total cost to reconstruct these lots is $1,016,364. All are in need of reconstruction.
Staff can add these lots to the 10 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and provide the
City Council with potential funding sources as a part of the overall Assessment Policy
financial discussion, currently scheduled for June 13.
Option 2: Reconstruct the lots and assess costs to benefitting property owners.
The total cost to reconstruct these lots is $1,016,364. All are in need of reconstruction.
Staff can add these lots to the 10 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with the funding
source as special assessments.
We have discussed this option with the City Attorney. It is his opinion that we can prove
benefit to property owners and consequently assess accordingly. This is consistent with
past practice for these lots, with the exception of the Louisiana Park & Ride (N & S) lots.
To move forward with the process to reconstruct these lots and assess the cost to adjacent
properties, staff would propose the following process:
Create a 10 year CIP for parking lot reconstruction.
Request that the City Council order a Feasibility Report for each lot. This would
happen the year before proposed reconstruction.
Complete a parking study to determine which properties have customers or employees
that are using the lot.
Complete a land use review to determine parking ratios required by City Code.
Determine if the property has adequate private parking.
Using this information, determine the number of stalls to assign to each property use to
meet the City Code parking requirements.
Work with property owners on a public process to discuss the projects and proposed
assessments.
Provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Option 3: Sell the property as excess land.
Most of these lots are used by businesses for employee or customer parking. Elimination
of these lots would increase the need for on street parking. Some of the streets surrounding
these lots have parking restrictions. This decision would perhaps affect the adjacent
residential property and create parking shortages.
Staff will be at the meeting to answer questions regarding this item.
")3
")25
")5
¬«7
¬«100
LYNNAVES29TH ST W
36 TH ST W
LAKE
S
T
W MON
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
QUENTINAVESVERNONAVESUTICAAVESMINNETONKA BLVD
WOODDALE
AVE
CEDAR LAKE AVE
SERVICE DR H I G H W A Y 7
WOODDA
L
E
AVEXENWOODAVES28TH ST W
33RD ST W
W O L F E P K W Y MONTEREYAVESZARTHANAVES4 1 S T S T W
WALKER ST
JOPPA AVE SLAKE ST W
31ST ST W INGLEWOODAVE S
WALKER ST TOLEDOAVESP A R K C O M M ON S D R
26TH ST W
XENWOODAVESGOODRICH AVE
W ALKERSTXENWOODAVESOXFOR
D
S
T KIPLINGAVESRHODEISLANDAVES26TH ST
W
33RD ST W
28TH ST W
27TH ST W
34TH ST W
S UNSE T BLVD
31ST
S
T W
36TH ST W
35TH ST W
MEADOWBROOK RD35TH ST W
EDGEWOODAVESLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
VICTORI
A
W
A
Y
36TH ST W
42ND ST W
39TH ST W
29TH ST W
27TH ST W
UTICAAVESBRUNSWICKAVES31ST ST WSUMTERAVES
32ND ST W
TAFTAVESVALLA
C
H
E
R
A
V
E
32ND ST W
33RD ST W
40TH ST W NATCHEZAVES32ND ST W
DIVISION ST
34TH ST W
32 1/2 ST W
37TH ST W 36 1/2 ST W
R
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
V
E
EDGE
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
3 9 T H S T W
DAKOTAAVESS E R V IC E DR H IG H W A Y 7
ALABAMAAVESOXFORD ST
YOSEMITEAVES37TH ST WUTAHAVES
INGLEWOODAVESSUMTERAVESJOPPAAVESFLORIDAAVESGEORGIAAVESHAMPSHIREAVESIDAHOAVESLOUISIANAAVESMEADOWBROOKLNYOSEMITEAVESXENWOODAVESB
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E WEBSTERAVES36TH ST W WEBSTERAVESYOSEMITEAVES31ST ST WLYNNAVES
SALEM AVESQUEBECAVESQUEBECAVESOREGONAVESNEVADAAVESEDGEWOODAVESPENNSYLVANIAAVESMARYLANDAVESSALEMAVESPRINCETONAVESRALEIGHAVESQUENTINAVESUTAHAVESP R I VAT E R D
NORT
H
S
T
M
O
NIT
O
R
STCAMBRIDGE ST
3 5 T H S T W
40TH L
N
W
P A R K G L E N RDMEADOWBROOK
BLVDRALEIGHAVESLOUIS
I
ANAAVESPARKCENTERBLVDKIPLINGAVESALABAMAAVESLOUISIANAAVESUTICAAVESI
D
A
H
O
A
V
E
S
2ND ST NWJOPPAAVESLYNN AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SOTTAWAAVESQUEBECAVESS E R V I C E D R H IG H W A Y 7
PRIVATER D
BRUNSWICKAVESZARTHANAVESBRUNSWICKAVESCOLORADOAVESALABAMAAVESJERSEYAVESKENTUCKYAVESALLEYBLACKSTONEAVESHUNTINGTONAVESPOW ELL RD
0 625 1,250 1,875 2,500Feet
²
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
27th St. & Louisiana Ave.
36th St. & Wooddale Ave.
Alabama Ave. & Excelsior Blvd.
Bohn Welding / Lake St. Alley / Georgia Ave.
Gorham Lot
Lake St. W. and Walker St.
Louisiana Ave. Park & Ride (N & S)
City Limits
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 4
27TH ST W
LOUISIANA CT KENTUCKYAVESLOUISIANAAVES2640 2641
27322733
2729
2640
27282728
2721
2716 2717
2722
2725 2725
2720
2717
2708 2709 2708
2713
2636
2733 2732
2729
2730 2740
2724
2722
2721
2717 2716
7217
2700 2701
7309 7203
2701
2700
2645
2635 2634
2631 2630
26492648
2645 2644
2625 2624
2632
2641
2633
2629 2624
2650
2644
2628
2750
2746 2747
2742
2741
2737 2737
2704 2748
2745
2740 27412711
27042704
2738
2712
72047300
2736
2713 2712
2705
0 50 100 150 200Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
27th St. & Louisiana Ave.
2631 Louisiana Ave. S. (6)
2641 Louisiana Ave. S. (10)
2645 Louisiana Ave. S. (8)
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 5
¬«7
37TH ST W
35TH ST W
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
ALABAMAAVESWOOD
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
35TH ST W
XENWOODAVES36TH ST W
PRIVATE
R
DBRUNSWICKAVES YOSEMITEAVESWALKERSTW O O D D A L E A V E T O W B H W Y 7
E B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E A V E
PRIVATE R
D
S E R V IC E D R H IG H W A Y 7
W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E A V E
W O O D D A L E A V E T O E B H W Y 75600
636357085718
6015
5655
6007
5684
6017
56305925
5691
5708
6005
6039
3506
5815
5912
6010
3520
3530
5725
3700
3701
6027
560557015727
5825
3630
3600
3700
5721
3601
3524
5707
5720
5724
3520
5802
58145816
3548
3548
3575
3565
0 75 150 225 300Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
36th St. & Wooddale Ave.
5802 36th St. W. (6)
5724 36th St. W. (10)
3601 Wooddale Ave. S. (44)
3565 Wooddale Ave. S. (13)
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 6
")3
ALABAMAAVESBROOKSIDEAVESALABAMAAVES40546111
6011
6112
6100
6100
3991 6002
3987
3985
5930
4046
5925
3990
3996
6006 59153986
5900
3985
3981 592239823977
39783975
3971
3980
6114
6001
5911
3961
3967
59123965
3977
39763966
39723973
3937
5916
0 40 80 120 160Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
Alabama Ave. & Excelsior Blvd.
5922 Excelsior Blvd. (2)
5930 Excelsior Blvd. (4)
6001 Excelsior Blvd. (6)
6002 Excelsior Blvd. (8)
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
6006 Excelsior Blvd. (4)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 7
O
A
K
L
E
A
F
D
R
WALK ER ST
WALKER ST
ID
A
H
O
A
V
E
SR
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
V
E 1ST ST NWLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
GORHAMAVEB
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
ELOUISIANAAVESLOUISIANAAVES
LOUISIANAAVES2ND ST NW3260
3261
6714
3384
3381
3356
3355
7020 67267008
3361
3374
3330
3378
3370
3366
3362
3375
3340 33873363
3451
3370
33583325
6425
6425
3313
3340
3355
3305
3312
3328 3339
3337
33613357
3362
3333
33293320
3371
3361
3351
3358
3354
3280
3300
3401
3334 3343
3324
3300
3350
3320
3316 3340
3301
3312
3313
3337
3333
3312
3351
3500
3304 3338
3325
3321 3345
33303317 3341
3308
3304
3317
3337 3340
3326
3383
3379
3354
3343
3350
3309
3305
3286
3318
3301
3329
33053278
3336
3321 33323300
3313
3326
3346
3366
3297
3328
3338 3347
3346
3333
3308
3309
33163282
3322
3325
3324
3320
3501
7201
0 75 150 225 300Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
Gorham Lot
3340 Gorham Ave. (17)
3360 Gorham Ave. (5)
3359 Gorham Ave. (2)
3304 Gorham Ave. (9)
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
3316 Gorham Ave. (18)
3336 Gorham Ave. (24)
3359-61 Republic Ave. (6)
3305-25 Republic Ave. (6)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 8
")5MINNETONKA BLVD
LOUISIANAAVESKENTUCKYAVESMARYLANDAVES3033 3032 303230323033
3041 30403040 30413043 3040
3025 3024
3021 3020
7312
2941 2940
2928
7200
3021
3022
3021
7320
3037 3036 303630393036
3029 3028
3025
3037
302973217307 7201 7119 7109 7101
2940
7301 7225 7221 7217
3016
7112 7100
3015 301630173017
3024
3028
2924 2936
7315 7213
2925
3028
3029
3025
7304 7124 7116
3020
3016
2937
0 40 80 120 160Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
Louisiana Park & Ride (N & S)
Not Assessed
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 9
¬«7 LAKE ST W LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
WALKER ST
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
650965157001
6416
7000
6900
6534
6714
6824
3384
650465126516
6530
65306726 3416
6500
6900
6818
3374
3378
68123393
6800
3375
3387 6804
3404
3390
3384 67003371
3383
3379
6525
0 40 80 120 160Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
Lake St. and Walker St.
6516 - 24 Walker St. (5)
6804 Lake St. W. (4)
6812 Lake St. W. (15)
6818 Lake St. W. (2)
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
6824 Lake St. W. (6)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 10
2
h
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
2
h
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
gPermit Parking6600 Lake St. W.
(Bohn Welding)
Assessed only for
Bohn Welding &
Georgia Ave. Lots DAKOTAAVESLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
34T
HST W
G
E
O
R
G
IA
A
V
E
S
DAKOTAAVESWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
HAMILTON ST
6320
3353
630863126316
6610
3391
345664256425
6425
6700
6700
6500
63013377
63006320
63096317
3398
3424
6528
6418
3410
6401
3401
6304
3397
641466003385 33523381
63133455
6525
6520
6422 64160 50 100 150 200Feet
Municipal Parking Lots
Legend
Municipal Parking Lots
Assessed Parcels
Parcels
City Limits
±
Bohn Welding/Lake St Alley/Georgia Ave
3410 Dakota Ave. S. (Unassigned)
6414 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
6416 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
6418 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
Assessed Parcels(Including Number of Spaces)
6422 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
6500 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
6520 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
6528 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)
6600 Lake St. W. (Unassigned)(Georgia and Bohn)
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 5)
Title: Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) - Parking Lots Page 11
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Discussion Item: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Climate Inheritance Resolution from iMatter
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed. City Council would like time to review and
discuss a draft resolution presented in March by youth from iMatter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council need additional information on this item?
SUMMARY: The youth from iMatter presented their climate change concerns to City Council at
the March 21, 2016 Study Session and also presented a draft Climate Inheritance Resolution. 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
an Energy 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 climate action planning.
In this resolution, the iMatter youth ask that the St. Louis Park City Council commits to working
on creating a St. Louis Park Climate Action Plan that significantly reduces St. Louis Park’s
greenhouse gas emissions levels. They also ask that actions towards completing a Climate Action
Plan start within 30 days of adopting the resolution. Their final request is that a mechanism will
be created to for the ongoing inclusion of young people in the process of creating and executing
climate related policies and actions.
NEXT STEPS: Council to provide direction to staff regarding the resolution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Developing a detailed climate action plan
will require financial support for hiring a consultant as well as City staff time.
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 Climate Inheritance Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Shannon Pinc, Environment & Sustainability Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Climate Inheritance Resolution
A Resolution expressing the commitment of the St. Louis Park City
Council to protect the children and grandchildren of this community
from the risks of climate destruction.
WHEREAS, 195 countries, including the United States and every country that is a member of
the United Nations, reached an agreement in Paris, France on December 12, 2015, that
recognizes the risk to our children’s and grandchildren’s future from climate change;
WHEREAS, the greatest burden resulting from an inadequate response to the climate crisis
will be carried by the youngest generation, and all who follow;
WHEREAS, the risks from an inadequate response are potentially devastating, and include
economic and environmental disruptions many of which are already being felt such as more
severe storms, longer and hotter heat waves, worsening flood and drought cycles, growing
invasive species and insect problems, accelerated species extinction rates, rising sea levels,
increased wildfires, and a dramatic increase in refugees from climate impacted lands;
WHEREAS, leading climate scientists1 have indicated that further delay in significantly
reducing greenhouse gas emissions will rapidly push humanity past the point where
disastrous consequences can be avoided;
WHEREAS, numerous governmental and non-governmental bodies across the nation and the
world have already adopted climate action plans to immediately and rapidly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions while also stopping them entirely within 25 years;
1 Hansen J, Kharecha P, Sato M, Masson-Delmotte V, Ackerman F, Beerling DJ, et al. (2013) Assessing
“Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future
Generations and Nature. PLoS ONE 8(12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Climate Inheritance Resolution from iMatter Page 2
WHEREAS, youth of St. Louis Park have brought this Council a Youth Climate Report Card
highlighting the gap between what we are doing today and actions that would be necessary
to protect their future;
WHEREAS, youth of St. Louis Park have indicated a willingness to work with this Council on
such actions, we, therefore, declare it:
RESOLVED, that St. Louis Park City Council commits to working constructively, using
ingenuity, innovation, and courageous determination to create a St. Louis Park Climate
Action Plan for consideration that significantly reduces St. Louis Park’s greenhouse gas
emissions to levels that would protect our community’s children and grandchildren from the
risk of climate destruction
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this City Council commits to start the St. Louis Park Climate
Action Plan creation process within 30 days, and to complete it as soon as possible
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a mechanism will be created to for the ongoing inclusion of
young people in the process of creating and executing climate related policies and actions.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by __________________ in ______________ on
________________ with a quorum present.
Signed by: ________________________________
Attest: ____________________________________
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 6)
Title: Climate Inheritance Resolution from iMatter Page 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Candidate Filing Fees
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. This item is being presented at
the request of the Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to move forward with an ordinance
amending the City Charter to increase the filing fee for candidates for City offices?
SUMMARY: The City Council previously directed staff to examine the possibility of raising the
filing fee for candidates running for City offices.
What is the current fee for candidates filing for local office?
Candidates are required to pay a $20 filing fee in addition to submitting a nomination petition
signed by at least 15 currently registered electors qualified to vote for the office specified on the
petition.
Is there a limit to what the City can charge for a filing fee?
Candidate filing fees are governed by Minnesota Statute 205.13, Subd. 3 (attached Exhibit A). A
home rule charter city that sets filing fees by authority provided in city charter is not subject to the
fee limits imposed by statute.
What do other cities in Hennepin County charge for a filing fee?
Please see the attached table (Exhibit B) on page 2.
What is the process required to change the filing fee?
Amendments to the City Charter are governed by Minnesota Statute 410.12 (attached Exhibit C).
In the past, amendments to the City Charter have been enacted by ordinance in accordance with
the procedure outlined in M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7. As you will note in the attachment, for the Council
to amend the Charter in this way requires unanimous agreement - 7 affirmative votes.
How many candidates have filed for City offices in the previous 3 municipal elections?
2015: 4 candidates for Mayor, 1 candidate for Councilmember At-Large A, 2 candidates
for Councilmember At-Large B
2013: 1 candidate for Ward 1 Councilmember, 1 candidate for Ward 2 Councilmember, 3
candidates for Ward 3 Councilmember, 2 candidates for Ward 4 Councilmember
2011: 1 candidate for Mayor, 2 candidates for Councilmember At-Large A, 3 candidates
for Councilmember At-Large B
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Exhibit A – Minnesota Statute 205.13, Subd. 3, Filing Fees
Exhibit B – Candidate Filing Fees in Surrounding Cities
Exhibit C – Minnesota Statute 410.12, Subd. 7
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Candidate Filing Fees
EXHIBIT A
205.13 CANDIDATES, FILING
Subd. 3. Filing fees.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the filing fee for a municipal office is as
follows:
(1) in first class cities, $20;
(2) in second and third class cities, $5; and
(3) in fourth class cities and towns, $2.
(b) A home rule charter or statutory city may adopt, by ordinance, a filing fee of a different
amount not to exceed the following:
(1) in first class cities, $80;
(2) in second and third class cities, $40; and
(3) in fourth class cities, $15.
(c) A home rule charter city that sets filing fees by authority provided in city charter is not
subject to the fee limits in this section.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Candidate Filing Fees
EXHIBIT B
CANDIDATE FILING FEES IN SURROUNDING CITIES
City Filing Fee Nominating
Petition?
Primary
Election?
Even/Odd Year
Elections
St. Louis Park $20 Yes Yes Odd
Edina $5 No No Even
Hopkins $25 No No Odd
Minnetonka $5 No Yes Odd
Golden Valley $5 No No Odd
Richfield $25 Yes Yes Even
Eden Prairie $5 No No Even
Plymouth $5 No No Even
Bloomington $50 No Yes Odd
Minneapolis Mayor = $500;
Council = $250 No No Odd
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: Candidate Filing Fees
EXHIBIT C
410.12 AMENDMENTS.
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance.
Upon recommendation of the charter commission the city council may enact a charter
amendment by ordinance. Within one month of receiving a recommendation to amend the
charter by ordinance, the city must publish notice of a public hearing on the proposal and the
notice must contain the text of the proposed amendment. The city council must hold the public
hearing on the proposed charter amendment at least two weeks but not more than one month
after the notice is published. Within one month of the public hearing, the city council must vote
on the proposed charter amendment ordinance. The ordinance is enacted if it receives an
affirmative vote of all members of the city council and is approved by the mayor and published
as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall not become
effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later date as is fixed in the
ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition
requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. The petition must be
signed by registered voters equal in number to at least five percent of the registered voters in the
city or 2,000, whichever is less. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the
ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter
amendments submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters,
except that the council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election held at least
60 days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance.
As far as practicable the requirements of subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under
this section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and to the filing of such ordinance when
approved by the voters.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of the Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of the report is to inform the
Council of the Southwest Community Works Committee’s desire to seek support for the Southwest
LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy from the cities along the Southwest LRT corridor.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the
Corridor-wide Housing Strategy as a document to inform future station area planning, housing
policy planning and comprehensive plan updates?
SUMMARY: In May 2012, the Southwest Community Works Steering Committee approved a
process to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the Southwest LRT Corridor. The outcome
of the strategy is to help achieve the Southwest Community Work's vision and guiding principle
for providing a full range of housing choices specifically within ½ mile of the Green Line
Extension station areas. Southwest Corridor Community Works and their funding partners have
been working together since 2012 to inventory existing housing options in the corridor and to
understand what the future housing demand may be and the likely demographics of people
interested in living along the corridor. In addition, the work includes an understanding of the
current and potential local, county, state and federal technical and financial resources to support a
full range of housing choices.
Additionally, cities along the corridor have undertaken housing studies, outlined tools and
strategies in comprehensive plans, and set individual housing goals. These efforts, along with other
resources and technical assistance, including the findings in the Gaps Analysis conducted by
Community Works, have been compiled and considered to form the basis for a Southwest LRT
Corridor-wide Housing Strategy.
At the September 28, 2015 Study Session meeting, an overview of the SWLRT Housing Gaps
Analysis and the draft SW LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy were presented to the Council.
Throughout the fall of 2015, Southwest Corridor Community Works continued to seek stakeholder
input on the draft Strategy. A final draft of the Corridor Wide Housing Strategy was adopted by
the Southwest Corridor Works Steering Committee at their January 2016 meeting and referred to
member cities and partner organizations for individual action as appropriate.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, CD Deputy Director/Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of the Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Southwest Corridor Housing Inventory was completed in November 2013
and the findings were presented to the City Council at the November 25, 2013 Study Session. The
purpose of the housing inventory identified the current housing stock along the Southwest Corridor
at various intervals from the specific station areas.
Since the inventory did not provide future projections related to housing demand, future market
supply, potential housing gaps or how those gaps could be addressed through the use of specific
tools and strategies, the Housing Gaps Analysis was completed in September 2014 to specifically
answered those questions and more including:
What housing types and values are missing from the Corridor?
What are the strengths and weaknesses along the SWLRT line?
Where are the optimal sites for housing development within ¼ mile of station areas?
Where is the greatest risk of gentrification?
What tools and strategies will be most useful in achieving the goal of a full range of housing
choices?
Additionally, cities along the corridor undertook housing studies, outlined tools and strategies in
comprehensive plans and set individual housing goals. These efforts, along with other resources
and technical assistance, including the findings in the Gaps Analysis, were compiled and
considered to form the basis for preparing a draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
in March 2015. Throughout the fall of 2015, Southwest Corridor Community Works continued to
seek input on the draft Strategy from stakeholders including the cities along the corridor and
various interest groups; residents, developers, finance organizations, schools and housing
advocates.
The draft Strategy was revised based on the input received from stakeholders and a final draft of
the Corridor-wide Housing Strategy was adopted by the Southwest Corridor Works Steering
Committee at their January 2016 meeting and referred to member cities and partner organizations
for individual action as appropriate.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
What are the housing goals of Corridor-wide Housing Strategy?
The Corridor-wide Housing Strategy lays out a corridor wide goal for new construction and
preservation of both market and affordable units by 2030.
New Construction: Add 11,200 new units within ½ mile of the Corridor, including 3,520
units affordable to low and moderate income households up to 100% Area Medium Income
(AMI), with 2,265 of those units affordable to those households at or below 80% AMI.
This target includes 1,314 new homeownership units, with 950 of those affordable to entry
level and midmarket owners.
Preservation: Preserve 3,800 unsubsidized affordable units (<60% AMI) rental units by
2030 out of 6,700 unsubsidized affordable units within ½ mile of the Corridor.
In order to meet these goals the Housing Strategy goes on to identify four objectives, each with
implementation strategies. The implementation strategies are designed as a toolbox of options
available to funding partners and policy makers to achieve the housing goals.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Acceptance of the Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
How can the Corridor-wide Housing Strategy inform St. Louis Park’s Housing Policies?
Southwest LRT Community Works envisions this Corridor-wide Strategy as a complement to
other local housing planning and policy work. It provides objectives, suggested housing targets
and potential implementation strategies that are options to help Corridor stakeholders work toward
a full range of housing choices in the LRT station areas. The Housing Workgroup acknowledges
that there are many ways for communities to meet local and regional housing goals and that each
community, through its selected and appointed leaders, will have it owns legitimate priorities,
funding and policy choices and may seek different housing balances at different points in time.
The document provides a menu of options, similar to a toolbox; however, not all the strategies
within the document will fit every city. The document does not include individual station goals or
individual city goals; these will be left up to the individual communities along the corridor.
St. Louis Park Housing staff participated on the SW Housing Committee assisting in the review
of the Housing Inventory and Gaps Analysis and providing input in the development of the draft
SW Corridor-wide Housing Strategy. The SW Community Work’s guiding principal to provide a
full range of housing choices along the SWLRT corridor closely aliens with the City’s overall
housing vision to promote a balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of
diverse life-cycle housing choices suitable for households of all income levels. Also, the
objectives and many of the implementation strategies included in the Strategy are consistent with
both the City’s current housing goals and housing related initiatives already being undertaken in
the City. The Housing Strategy will not take the place of each City’s need to identify and
implement Housing goals specific to meeting their communities housing needs, but it will guide
and support communities in promoting a shared vison to create sustained healthy communities
with a full range of housing choices along the corridor.
By accepting the Corridor-wide Housing Strategy, the City of St. Louis Park is acknowledging
that it will use the document to inform future station area planning, housing policy planning and
comprehensive plan updates. City staff will consider the implementation strategies and their
relative fit to St. Louis Park’s housing policies as we plan for future growth around the City’s three
station areas.
What are the benefits of having a Corridor -wide Housing Strategy?
There are numerous benefits that may come from working collaboratively with other communities
along the corridor, including increasing the corridor’s ability to be competitive, adding leverage to
secure public and philanthropic resources, sending a positive message to the development
community about the desire for a mix of housing choices, and aligning to achieve regional goals.
In addition, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its most recent New Starts Guidance, now
considers policies, planning and programs that support development and retention of affordable
housing along transit corridors as part of its project evaluation criteria for funding.
And lastly, the Southwest Corridor Housing Strategy contains objectives that can inform housing
planning, including comprehensive plan updates, in Southwest LRT Corridor communities as well
as suggested implementation strategies that may assist in creation of a full range of housing choices
around Southwest LRT stations, increasing LRT ridership and supporting economic development
and healthy communities.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Acceptance of the Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
The complete SW Corridor-wide Housing Strategy can be accessed on the Southwest Community
Works Website at:
HTTP://WWW.SWLRTCOMMUNITYWORKS.ORG/~/MEDIA/SW%20CORRIDOR/D
OCUMENT%20ARCHIVE/HOUSING/SW-CORRIDOR-HOUSING-STRATEGY-
FINAL-DRAFT.PDF
NEXT STEPS: If there are no objections, staff will present a resolution for Council’s
consideration at the May 16, 2016 Council Meeting to accept the Southwest Corridor-wide
Housing Strategy acknowledging that it will use the document to inform future station area
planning, housing policy planning and comprehensive plan updates.
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: Acceptance of the Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
RESOLUTION NO. 16-___
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT
THE SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR HOUSING STRATEGY
TO INFORM FUTURE HOUSING PLANNING
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners adopted resolution No. 09-
0596 in 2009 to establish the Southwest LRT Community Works program in consultation with the
cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis, and other
Southwest LRT partners, and
WHEREAS, the Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee, composed of
Southwest LRT Community Works partners from cities and other agencies along the Southwest
corridor, was formed in 2010 to provide overall guidance and direction for the Southwest LRT
Community Works Project, and
WHEREAS, Southwest LRT Community Works goals and guiding principles for
investment call for positioning the Southwest communities as a place for all to live and providing
a full range of housing choices, and
WHEREAS, the Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee endorsed the
creation of a corridor-wide housing strategy in May 2012, consisting of a housing inventory, gaps
analysis and strategy document to support housing development along the Southwest LRT
corridor, and
WHEREAS, representatives from the City of St. Louis Park have been active participants
in the Southwest Housing Workgroup, which provided oversight and guidance for the development
of the Housing Strategy, the Technical Implementation Committee, which provided feedback on
the Strategy and the Community Works Steering Committee, which provided overall policy
direction and guidance, and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Community Works Steering Committee accepted the Corridor
Housing Strategy at its January 2016 meeting and referred the document to member cities and
partner organizations for individual action as appropriate, and
WHEREAS, there are numerous benefits that may come from working collaboratively,
including increasing the corridor’s ability to be competitive, adding leverage to secure public and
philanthropic resources, sending a positive message to the development community about the
desire for a mix of housing choices, and aligning to achieve regional goals, and
WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its most recent New Starts
Guidance, now considers policies, planning and programs that support development and retention
of affordable housing along transit corridors as part of its project evaluation criteria for funding,
and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Corridor Housing Strategy contains objectives that can inform
housing planning, including comprehensive plan updates, in Southwest LRT Corridor
communities as well as suggested implementation strategies that may assist in creation of a full
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Title: Acceptance of the Southwest LRT Corridor-wide Housing Strategy
range of housing choices around Southwest LRT stations, increasing LRT ridership and supporting
economic development and healthy communities,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park accepts the Southwest
Corridor Housing Strategy as a document to inform future station area planning, housing policy
planning and comprehensive plan updates.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on SW Parcel at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (Project # 2012-0100)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to provide the City Council an update related to the
acquisition of the southwest parcel near the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This action is consistent with previous direction given by
Council as part of the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
SUMMARY: On July 16, 2012 City Council approved a resolution Authorizing Condemnation
of Land for Public Purposes for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project. Prior to
that action, specific right of way needs were determined and appraisals for seven identified
properties were conducted. As a result, the City Attorney commenced eminent domain proceedings
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary land over the seven properties
identified. Since that time, the City has purchased Parcel 9 and is working on the purchase
agreement for Parcel 1. Both properties were owned by Clear Channel Outdoors.
On May 27, 2014, City Council authorized the city attorney and staff to negotiate with Clear
Channel to purchase the remaining portions of both properties for economic development and
storm water purposes. This report is an update on the status of the land acquisition from Clear
Channel for the SW Parcel.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to the “quick take” provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, the City has paid Clear Channel $248,000 towards the right of way taking and
temporary easements impacted by the construction of the new interchange. An additional
$513,653.35 is needed to acquire the SW parcel. The additional funding would be provided by
two sources. The Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Project would pay an additional $47,521.50,
the Development Fund would contribute $466,131.85. More information regarding the proposed
land acquisition can be found in the “Discussion” section of the report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Parcel Map
Location Map
Vacation Exhibit
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Steven Heintz, Interim Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Update on SW Parcel at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (Project # 2012-0100)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: To construct the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue interchange project, two parcels
of land needed to be acquired from Clear Channel. Parcel 9 (“NE Parcel”) is located in the NE corner
of the interchange between Walker Street to the north and Highway 7 to the south (map attached).
Parcel 1 (“SW Parcel”) is located in the SW corner of the interchange between Highway 7 to the north
and Lake Street West to the south (map attached). Only a portion of these vacant parcels were needed
for Right of Way (ROW) purposes. Since May 27, 2014, the City and EDA have been working on a
purchase agreement to acquire the remaining portions of both properties from Clear Channel for
economic development and storm water purposes. The NE Parcel has since closed and is now owned
by the City.
SW Parcel
The SW Parcel is 67,329 sq. ft. and roughly triangular in shape. It lies immediately west of 7250 State
Hwy 7; the site of the former Methodist Hospital Park & Ride (“Gold Lot”), owned by the EDA. Both
the SW Parcel and the EDA parcel are oddly shaped and have little potential to redevelop efficiently
on their own. When combined however, these parcels create an oblong-shaped property consisting of
nearly 3.5 acres which could readily sustain commercial redevelopment. Given its proximity and
visibility from the new highway interchange, such a commercial site would receive strong market
interest. In addition, this site is within walking distance of the proposed Louisiana SWLRT station.
The City has deposited $248,000 to acquire the Partial Take of the SW Parcel. A purchase agreement
is in place to acquire the SW parcel for $761,653.35 which equates to $10.85 per sf. Please see
summary below for funding breakdown. It is anticipated that the EDA would recoup its investment
when redevelopment occurs on this site.
City Funding Allocation
Hwy 7 & LA Development
Project Fund Total
SW Parcel Purchase:
Purchase Price $761,653.35 $295,521.50 $466,131.85 $761,653.35
Less right‐ of‐ way
Partial Take Payment ($248,000.00) ($248,000.00) ($248,000.00)
Remaining Amount Due $513,653.35 $47,521.50 $466,131.85 $513,653.35
Next Steps
Staff has been working with Clear Channel to find a location for the two sided billboard on the west
side of parcel 1. Staff also identified excess right of way adjacent to the west property line of the Clear
Channel parcel. At the May 16th City Council meeting, staff will present the vacation of the excess
right of way and drainage and utility easements. The vacation document is attached showing the
location of the vacation of the excess right of way and drainage and utility easements. Vacating the
excess right of way will allow the billboard to shift further to the west thus maximizing the potential
for development on the SW Parcel.
Clear Channel is requesting a view easement as part of the purchase agreement for the SW billboard
like they have on the billboard in the NE corner of the intersection. This easement allows Clear
Channel to remove anything which would be placed in front of the view of the billboard. Please see
attached document showing approximate location of the view easement. Existing trees will need to be
removed which are located within the proposed view easement. Staff expects the purchase agreement
for the SW Parcel will be brought to council in June of 2016 for approval.
1
975+00
980+00
10+00 14+00975+00
980+00
15+00
11+00
15+00
RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL LAYOUT
SCALE: 1" = ’ OWNER : PID NO.
COUNTY : HENNEPIN
CITY : ST. LOUIS PARK
S.P. 163-080-083, 2706-226
3:57:00 PM5/7/20121 ParcelS:\PT\S\Stlou\116227\5-dsgn\51-cadd\R-O-W\parcel sketches\Parcel Sketches.dgn
5/7/2012DATE:LAYOUT BY: SEH Inc.Parcel No.
OWNER:
NO.
PARCEL
ADDITION NAME:
SQ FT
MNDOT R/W
NEW
SQ FT
CITY R/W
NEW
SQ FT
EASEMENT
TEMPORARY
MNDOT
SQ FT
EASEMENT
TEMPORARY
CITY
LEGEND
PROPOSED TEMPORARY EASEMENT
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING CITY RIGHT OF WAY/PARCEL LINES
EXISTING MNDOT RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED CONSRUCTION
100 NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADV. INC.171-172-134-0073
1 NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADV. INC.
REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK
OF SAID LOT 6 TH SE’LY TO BEG
TH W’LY ALONG SAID S’LY LINE TO E’LY LINE OF LOT 6 BLK 323 TH S’LY ALONG SAID E’LY LINE TO SE COR
LINE OF LOT 1 BLK 159 TH NE’LY ALONG SAID SE’LY LINE AND ITS EXTENSIONS TO S’LY LINE OF HWY NO 7
TO CTR LINE OF VAC STREET TH SE’LY ALONG SAID CTR LINE TO ITS INTERSEC WITH S’LY EXTENSION OF SE’LY
158 DIS 110 FT NELY FROM MOST SLY COR THOF TH NELY ALONG SAID SE’LY LINE AND ITS NE’LY EXTENSION
THAT PART OF BLKS 158 159 323 AND OF ADJ VAC STREETS DESC AS BEG AT A PT ON SELY LINE OF LOT 1 BLK
1
16,694 16,9345.74’46.62’50’50’WB TH 7
EB TH 7W. 37th ST.KI
LMER LANEStudy Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SW Parcel at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (Project # 2012-0100) Page 3
¬«7
L
OUI
SI
ANAAVESWA LKER ST
LAKE
S
T
W
TAFTAVESW A L K E R S T
LAKESTWL A K E ST W
SERVIC E DR HIGHWAY 7
OREGONAVES37TH ST W LOUI
SI
ANAAVES3730
7508
7341
7300
7401
7505
7221
7500 74093537 7105
37293715
7301
7405
7421
731773173733 7260
37253729
7330
73
0
1
75167201
3733
3736
3737
7250
37243721 3280
75257400
7420
7400
3501
371735333750 72003725
3500
7201
0 75 150 225Feet
²
ProposedDouble-SidedBillboardSW Parcel
Legend
Approximate Billboard
Location
Approximate Billboard
View Easement
Parcels
City Limits
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SW Parcel at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (Project # 2012-0100) Page 4
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 9) Title: Update on SW Parcel at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue (Project # 2012-0100) Page 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: City Hall/Police Station Sidewalk Improvements for Accessibility
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action requested. The purpose of this report is to inform
Council of the planned sidewalk construction at the City Hall and Police Station entrances in order
to provide access in compliance with the Federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Title II of the ADA requirements are written specifically for public buildings and
holds them to a higher standard for compliance. For many years, Minnesota has been incorporating
ADA requirements into the state construction codes to reduce conflicts and dependence on the
federal standards. However, the state construction codes are written in a way that does not totally
include the federal provisions for improving existing public buildings and has led to confusion in
the design and construction industry that has recently become apparent.
During remodeling of the City Hall entrance, sidewalk repair was designed to work with the
existing grades of the building and parking lot while improving accessibility in compliance with
ADA standards. However, actual finished slopes slightly exceed the maximums permitted in the
ADA for public buildings, which does not provide allowances for existing conditions or recognize
any construction tolerance, no matter how small.
Staff did not realize the City Hall entrance was not compliant until we received a public complaint
that the entrance did not meet ADA standards. Wanting to make sure we corrected the situation
properly, staff retained an accessibility consultant to undertake a facility review. This has resulted
in a design that will allow the parking lot and building to meet accessibility standards for public
buildings. The plan involves relocating the handicapped parking to east of the front door, removing
curb at the vehicle charging station and at current ramps, and replacing the front sidewalk.
During the same review, the Police Station entrance ramp was discovered to have either settled
into non-compliance or was built with a steeper than allowable slope in 1993. Revising access to
both buildings and the site connection is a priority needing to be corrected. Quotes were received
for the two projects and a contract is now being developed for the same contractor to complete both.
Work is expected to take a total of about three weeks and tentatively scheduled to begin in June.
Access to City Hall will be temporarily relocated to the single door west of the main entrance for
about ten days. Signage will be used to direct the public to the reception desk and stairs/elevator.
Normal access to the Police Station will not be impacted by the construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: A combination of the Uninsured Loss Fund
and a planned Capitol Replacement Fund project for the Police Station sidewalk from 2018 will
be utilized for the approximately $70,000 total project cost.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 Liquor Ordinance Amendment Request
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide the
Council with information related to a request received from the American Legion to amend the
St. Louis Park City Code Sec. 3-70 (g).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to move forward with an ordinance
amendment to formally exempt the holders of Club On-Sale liquor licenses from the requirement
to have at least 50% of the establishment’s gross receipts attributable to the sale of food?
SUMMARY: The City received a request from Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 for
consideration of an ordinance amendment that would formally exempt the holders of a Club On-
Sale Intoxicating liquor license from the requirement that at least 50% of the gross receipts of the
establishment be attributable to the sale of food. A letter detailing this request is attached.
The American Legion currently holds Club On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday liquor
licenses and is in the process of relocating to a new facility. The Legion has been at its current
location since 2005 and has not been subject to penalties for failure to comply with the food-
liquor ratio requirement.
The Council is asked to determine how to handle this issue once the Legion moves to its new
location. The City Attorney has been consulted and has given the opinion that, unlike zoning,
there is no grandfathered right to a liquor license. Each license holder is subject to the code
(whether it has been amended or not) at the time a license is issued or renewed. If Council would
like to allow continuance of this practice at their new location, it is recommended that approval
of an exemption take place.
Minnesota Statute 340A.404, Subd. 1(a)(4) allows cities to issue an on-sale intoxicating liquor
license to “clubs or congressionally chartered veterans organizations with the approval of the
commissioner, provided that the organization has been in existence for at least three years and
liquor sales will only be to members and bona fide guests”. State statute does not require Clubs
to serve food, however a Club not serving food could not be open on Sundays. The City would
need to adopt an ordinance amendment in order for a Club to serve liquor only. Current State and
City Code regulations state Sunday on-sale licenses are permitted only in conjunction with the
sale of food.
If no feedback is received, staff will proceed with preparation of an ordinance amendment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The American Legion currently pays an
annual license fee of $500 plus an additional $200 for the Sunday on-sale license. The current
license fee for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license (not a club) is $8,750.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Letter from Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 11) Title: Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 Liquor Ordinance Amendment RequestPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Series 2016 G.O. Bonds – Indoor/Outdoor Rec Center Projects
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is provided to advise the
Council on the schedule and recommended issuance of General Obligation Bonds (G.O. Bonds)
for the Indoor and Outdoor projects taking place at the Rec Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the issuance of G.O. Bonds the best approach for financing the
construction of the two projects at the Rec. Center?
SUMMARY: Staff is recommending issuing bonds for both the indoor refrigeration replacement
and the outdoor recreation facility at the Rec Center in an amount not to exceed $10 million in
aggregate. The issuance of bonds for these projects is consistent with the City’s Long Range
Financial Management Plan, and best allows the City to keep its very strong financial position.
The issuance of bonds for projects such as these also allows the costs to be paid over the course of
10 years. This spreads the cost of the facilities over these ten years, and not just to the current
residents and businesses.
Since these are Charter Bonds, they will require approval by at least 6 of the 7 City Council
members. The full breakout of the costs and funding for these projects is included as an attachment
to this report. This information was presented to Council at the February 16, 2016 Study Session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The two projects at the Rec Center are being
consolidated into one bond issuance for potential investors to bid, which should aid in receiving
more and lower bids due to the larger dollar issuance amount. The 10 year bond issue will have
its first two interest payments on 2/1/17 and 8/1/17 paid from capitalized interest from the bond
issue, with the first principal payment due 2/1/18. The Charter Bonds debt service will be via tax
levy beginning in pay 2017 in the amount of approximately $613,205, with the remaining years
tax levy being approximately $1,230,000 per year. This structure is designed to spread the levy
increase over the course of two years.
NEXT STEPS:
May 16, 2016 – Call for the Sale of Series 2016 G.O. Bonds
June 20, 2016 – Authorize and Award Sale of Series 2016 G.O. Bonds
By July 31, 2016 – Close on the Bonds – No City Council action required
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Cost for Rec Center Projects
Rec Center Projects Funding
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Interim Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DifferenceIndoor Refrigeraton Replacement4,400,000$ 4,390,000$ (10,000)$ Outdoor Recreation Facility5,650,000$ 8,895,000$ 3,245,000$ Combined Project Cost10,050,000$ 13,285,000$ 3,235,000$ Debt Issuance Costs300,000$ 300,000$ ‐$ Total Costs of Projects10,350,000$ 13,585,000$ 3,235,000$ Original Project Costs (as of July 2015)Current Project Costs (as of 2/16/16)Rec Center Arena Refrigeration Replacement & Outdoor Recreation Facility Project CostFebruary 16, 2016City of St. Louis ParkStudy Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 12) Title: Series 2016 G.O. Bonds – Indoor/Outdoor Rec Center ProjectsPage 2
Total Costs of Projects13,585,000$ Sources of FundsG.O. Bonds10,000,000$ Grants & Rebates606,000 Value Engineering400,000 Hockey Assocation Donation 400,000 Park Improvement Fund 1,500,000 General Fund679,000 Total Sources of Funds13,585,000$ *Remaining $1,550,000 of Hockey Association Donation will be deposited into Park Improvement Fund** General Fund portion is equal to 1.9% of Total Fund Balance. City of St. Louis ParkFunding for Rec Center Arena Refrigeration Replacement & Outdoor Recrecation Facility ProjectsFebruary 16, 2016Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 12) Title: Series 2016 G.O. Bonds – Indoor/Outdoor Rec Center ProjectsPage 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 9, 2016
Written Report: 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: PLACE Concept Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Update on Concept Plan and Next Steps
POLICY CONSIDERATION: At an upcoming City Council study session PLACE will present
a preliminary concept plan and the City Council will be asked for their input. This report is a
preview of PLACE’s plans.
SUMMARY: As follow-up from direction received from the City Council at last week’s
discussion of the Wooddale/Highway 7 traffic study, PLACE is reworking its concept plans to
split its development between the City/County site on the northeast corner of 36th Street and
Wooddale Avenue and, the McGarvey/EDA site on the frontage road north of the Wooddale LRT
station. The development program remains essentially the same as previously discussed, but now
it is split between the two sites.
This program is subject to change as the concept plans are refined over the next few months.
PLACE hopes to apply for formal zoning approval this fall and to begin construction in the spring
of 2017. PLACE will continue to work with the neighborhoods, adjacent property owners, City
Council and staff to refine the proposed plans. It is anticipated that PLACE will have an initial
concept plan to share at an upcoming study session.
In order to accomplish this plan, a number of steps would need to be taken, including a careful
review of the site plan, a plan for access, a traffic study, etc. In addition, the City and County site
would need to be combined for sale to PLACE. The County has suggested the City acquire the
County parcel (Nash Frame site) for resale to PLACE. It is expected the City would amend its
current agreement with PLACE to include this site if it is determined to be viable.
Next Steps:
PLACE is preparing a concept plan for the properties on either side of the Wooddale LRT station.
This plan will be discussed at an upcoming Study Session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of May 9, 2016 (Item No. 13) Page 2
Title: PLACE Concept Plan
DISCUSSION
Development Program: The PLACE development program would be split between the north and
south sides of the Wooddale LRT station consistent with the Wooddale/Highway 7 analysis. The
development on the frontage road north of the station would be limited to the amount and type of
development that would generate no more than 125 peak hour trips at the intersection of Wooddale
and the frontage road. The rest of the development program would be accommodated south of the
Wooddale LRT station. The full development program anticipated at this time includes:
300 dwelling units, including mixed income apartments, live/work space (200 affordable
and 100 market rate)
110 hotel rooms with cafe
E-Generation of 15,000 sf
19,439 square feet of commercial retail (co-working, maker space, bike shop, cafe,
coffeehouse).
Structured parking spaces
Car and bike sharing
Green space of approximately 1 acre
LEED Certified, multiple green roofs, car-free perks
PLACE/LRT Station Integration: Moving a portion of the PLACE development south of the
Wooddale LRT station offers an opportunity to integrate the development and the station much
more effectively than in the previous PLACE plans. PLACE is preparing its concept plans to
include an attractive common space that enhances the LRT station and uses their proposed hotel’s
public space as an extension of the LRT station.
Connection to Yosemite and Xenwood: A key to successful development of the City/County
property at Wooddale and W. 36th Street is adequate vehicle accessibility. Access to Yosemite
and thereby Xenwood with its traffic light on W. 36th Street would greatly enhance the City/County
site. PLACE is working on how best to connect to Yosemite including reaching out to the adjacent
property owners to coordinate development plans and establish improved vehicle access. Adding
access to Yosemite also offers an opportunity to enhance the passenger drop-off for the Wooddale
station.
Grants: PLACE has received a Livable Communities Act (LCA) Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Predevelopment grant in the amount of $100,000 for design activities, market analysis and
a pro-forma to analyze the development mix. This work has been completed.
PLACE also received a $2 million Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant
for site acquisition, storm water and renewable energy. Most recently, PLACE was awarded a
$750,000 grant from Hennepin County’s Transit Oriented Development program for which the
City or EDA will be the grantee.
Pre-Development Agreement: On May18, 2015 the EDA and City entered into a Pre-
Development Agreement with PLACE. The agreement includes an outline for applying for land
use and zoning changes as well as tax increment financing, and provides PLACE with exclusive
rights to negotiate acquisition of the subject properties with the EDA and the City. The agreement
was recently extended until February 28, 2017. The agreement will need to be further amended to
include the City/County properties on the south side of the Wooddale LRT station.