HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/03/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 23, 2015
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Community Room
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session – Community Room
2a. Closed session to discuss potential offer to purchase real property located at 40th Street
and France Ave. currently owned by the city of Minneapolis
3. Adjournment
Immediately following Special City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 6 & 13, 2015
2. 15 min. Land Use and Zoning - Parkdale Drive Area
3. 30 min. 2015 Assessment Report
4. 45 min. Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
5 min. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Adjourn
Written Reports
5. Environment & Sustainability Commission 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Work Plan
6. Update on Central Park West Project
7. Creation of JCPP Multicultural Advisory Committee
8. February 2015 Monthly Financial Report
9. Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
10. Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update
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: Special City Council
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Closed Session to Discuss Potential Offer to Purchase Real Property Located at 40th
Street and France Ave. Currently Owned by the City of Minneapolis
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time
SUMMARY: For some time now the cities of St. Louis Park and Edina have been discussing
with the City of Minneapolis the purchase of the Minneapolis owned property on the west side
of France Ave at 40th St. The site is approximately 15 acres in size with one third located in St.
Louis Park and two thirds in Edina.
Written offers have been exchanged between the cities with the most recent coming from
Minneapolis. The City Attorney and staff desire to discuss with the City Council a potential
offer back to Minneapolis.
Attached is the written offer made by St. Louis Park and Edina to Minneapolis in December,
2014 and the response back from Minneapolis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to be a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business; St Louis Park is committed to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Letters
Map of Property in Question
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special City Council Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Closed Session to Discuss Potential Offer to Purchase Property Located at 40th St. & France Ave.
December 19, 2014
Mayor Betsy Hodges Council President Barbara Johnson
City of Minneapolis City of Minneapolis
350 South 5th Street 350 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN. 55415 Minneapolis, MN. 55415
RE: Minneapolis Owned Land at 40th St. and France Avenue -
Edina and St. Louis Park Joint Purchase Offer
Dear Mayor Hodges and Council President Johnson,
Thank you for the opportunity to consider the purchase of the Minneapolis owned land located at
40th Street and France Avenue in Edina and St. Louis Park. Since receiving your letter of August
21st, both of our communities undertook a number of actions to help inform the response we
should provide back to you. These actions included:
• Neighborhood meetings and surveys, which included attendance by Minneapolis
residents.
• Careful review of the appraisal of the property conducted by the City of Minneapolis
dated April, 2013.
• An appraisal of the property by an independent fee appraiser, who provided us with a
valuation analysis of the property as park and open space.
• Several discussions of the topic by each city council.
• Review of legal options by each city’s legal counsel for maintaining the property in
current publically-owned open space use.
• A joint meeting between a subcommittee of councilmembers from Edina and St. Louis
Park to discuss the response back to Minneapolis.
As you know, practically speaking this property has been used and enjoyed for decades by
residents of Minneapolis, Edina and St. Louis Park as park and open space. Reflecting this
historical and future use, the property in St. Louis Park has been officially guided in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as Park and Open Space for quite some time.
As a result of the neighborhood meetings and other input we have received, which included
participation by Minneapolis residents, each council’s own analysis and the long history of
Special City Council Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Title: Closed Session to Discuss Potential Offer to Purchase Property Located at 40th St. & France Ave.
public ownership of the parcel, it is clear that the use of the property should continue as it is
today. Based on this input and analysis, the cities of Edina and St. Louis Park have carefully
discussed the options available to them and propose the following offer to purchase the subject
property:
Offer to Purchase
• The offer to purchase is based on the value shown in the April 2013 Minneapolis
appraisal and the value established by the Edina and St Louis Park appraisal of the
property if acquired for parks and open space.
• Value of the property identified in the April 2013 Minneapolis appraisal - $1,458,000
($432,000 for St. Louis Park portion and $1,026,000 for the Edina portion).
• Value of the property identified by the St. Louis Park and Edina appraisal if the property
were used as park and open space - $690,000.
• Proposed Offer to Purchase - $1,074,000. This amount is based on the mid-point
between the Minneapolis appraisal assuming development and the Edina/St. Louis Park
appraisal assuming park and open space. The purchase price will be apportioned between
St. Louis Park and Edina based upon the portion of the property located in each city.
• Offer is contingent on each city council approving a final purchase agreement.
Edina and St. Louis Park feel this is an extremely fair offer. The proposed amount is half way
between the Minneapolis appraisal that assumed full development and the value of the property
as open space. It allows Minneapolis to receive substantial compensation, while at the same time
continuing the property in public use for the benefit of its residents without any ongoing liability
or responsibility for maintenance and upkeep.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Mayor James B. Hovland Mayor Jeff Jacobs
City of Edina City of St Louis Park
Special City Council Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Closed Session to Discuss Potential Offer to Purchase Property Located at 40th St. & France Ave.Page 4
870880890
900
890870880 870880870880
870870
870870 870880880 FRANCE AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE41ST ST W
40TH ST W
39TH ST W39TH ST W
FRANCE AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE S1 inch = 200 feet
Legend
Parcels
City Boundaries
Floodplain (LOMR)
¯
Minneapolis Land at 40th St W & France Av S
Calvin Christian
School
Weber Park Weber ParkPond
Park Lease
Grade (2' Contours)
Special City Council Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Closed Session to Discuss Potential Offer to Purchase Property Located at 40th St. & France Ave.Page 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 6 and April 13, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
Special Study Session on April 6 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 13, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas 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 a
Special Study Session on April 6 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 13, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 6 & 13, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 6 and April 13, 2015
Special Study Session, April 6, 2015 – Immediately following City Council Meeting
Tentative Discussion Items
1. 2015 Water Meter Replacement Project – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes)
Staff will provide an update on this comprehensive water meter replacement project and ask
for policy direction on certain matters related to the project.
Study Session, April 13, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
**At this time there are no other Study Session Agenda items scheduled.**
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Land Use and Zoning - Parkdale Drive Area
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This is a follow-up to a recent request by the
Council to put this topic on a study session agenda.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council wish to provide direction to staff regarding
further study or changes to the land use and zoning designations in the Parkdale Drive area?
SUMMARY: At the City Council Study Session on February 23, 2015, Councilmember
Brausen requested that the City Council discuss the land use and zoning of the area bounded by
Parkdale Drive, Cedar Lake Road, and Highway 100 at a City Council Study Session. There are
four properties in this area totaling 10.7 acres (see attached zoning map for this area).
Councilmember Brausen advised that he was recently contacted by someone interested in
purchasing the parcel at 5305 Parkdale Drive, which was listed for sale. The property is zoned
Industrial Park and there was a question about whether the City would consider changing the
zoning and whether Council would consider placing a moratorium on the properties. He
requested that Council place this matter on a future study session agenda for further discussion.
In 2005, the City responded to a request from a developer to amend the Comprehensive Plan
land use designation from Industrial to Commercial and rezone 5330 Cedar Lake Road from IP -
Industrial Park to C1 - Neighborhood Commercial. This allowed the Cedar Point shopping
center (Caribou Coffee, Pei Wei, etc.) to be constructed with a Conditional Use Permit.
The remaining three properties are guided Industrial and zoned Industrial Park. Staff received
inquiries from the current property owner and a few interested buyers to redevelop 5305
Parkdale Drive to commercial use. No specific site plans or types of commercial uses were
provided. Staff’s impression was that one-story commercial centers similar to Cedar Point were
contemplated.
Currently, the property at 5305 Parkdale Drive is under contract for a proposed self-storage use.
The buyer intends to remodel the interior of the existing building, with little change to the
building exterior. Some outdoor storage is planned as an accessory use, which would need to be
screened. The buyer applied for a Registration of Land Use (RLU) for the self-storage use,
which is allowed in the IP District and the RLU was approved administratively.
There have not been any recent inquiries on the other two industrial parcels.
Across the street, the Parkdales office complex is also under contract. One of the buyers is
Excelsior Group, which developed the Flats at West End apartment building.
.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Zoning Map of the Parkdale Drive Area
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
R1
O
C2
IG
IP
R4
R2
IP
C2
RC
O
POS C2
R3
POS
R3
RC
C1
R2
R3 HIGHWAY 100 SC
E
D
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
16TH ST W
26TH ST W
25 1/2 ST W DUKE DRPARK PLACE BLVDBARRY ST
GAMBLE DR
23RD ST
W UTICA AVE SPARKDALE
D
R
WESTSIDE DRRIDGE DRPARKWOODS RDNB HWY100 S TO EB I394SB HWY100 S TO PARKD DRWEST END BLVDWEBSTER AVE SXENWOOD AVE SVERNON AVE SHILL LN SCEDAR LAKE RD S TO SB HWY100 SHIGHWAY 100 S26TH ST W PARK PLACE BLVDHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 S5305
5330
1700
5120
ZONING
3.4 acres
2.8 acres
3.0 acres
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Land Use and Zoning - Parkdale Drive Area Page 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2015 Assessment Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The report and discussion is primarily intended to assist with
the Council in conducting the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meetings being held in
April.
SUMMARY: The assessed market valuation and classification for each property determines
their individual tax capacity and thus the overall tax capacity of the community. In addition to
fiscal budgeting and property tax implications, the composition of value and trending are
important for Council to understand as they focus on overall governance of the community.
Discussion at the study session will focus on the 2015 assessment and will touch on both
historical performance and current market outlooks. This review is being made to give the
Council additional information on how the community has weathered the recent economic
upheavals, the significant evolution to the housing stock currently underway and a foundation to
look forward.
The appeal process will also be reviewed briefly in the discussion. The Department of Revenue
has directed changes to the procedures for the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization. These
changes coupled with the improvement of the real estate market may affect the volume of
appeals to be reviewed.
Next Step: The St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization convenes at 6:15 pm on
Monday April 13, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As noted above.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2015 Valuation Report
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
2015 Valuation Report
(Payable 2016 Tax Period)
Assessing Staff
General Information – 952-924-2535
Cory Bultema – City Assessor
Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser
Mark Hoppe – Residential Appraiser I
Deb Lynch – Senior Residential Appraiser II
Bridget Nathanson – Commercial Appraiser
Kelley Schomer – Associate Appraiser
Contents:
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System…………. Page 3
The Assessment Process……………………………………. Page 4
The Appeal Process………………………………………….. Page 5
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective Page 6
Summary of the 2015 St. Louis Park Assessment Roll…… Pages 7-11
Residential Valuation Summaries…………………………… Pages 12-13
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System
Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system,
including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows:
1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In
addition there are a multitude of sub-classifications which are administratively updated.
The owners are notified, generally March, with multiple options for discussion and appeal.
2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity and refined
via subsidies, exclusions and credits (e.g. homestead, veteran exclusion, et al, etc.).
3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction are set annually. Funding sources include the property
tax levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments,
programs/grants and other sources such as user fees from a variety of operational sources.
4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county,
school district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective
multiplier for each jurisdiction is applied to each individual property to calculate property
taxes. It is essential to understand that the property tax “rate” is only a math equation as
used in the Minnesota system.
The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value
and classification annually for 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park. The assessment is made to
comply with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota Statutes
and working together with the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office.
Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as:
The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at
the time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction
sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-
length transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.
Market value is a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general economic
conditions and seasonal cycles all play a significant role. The Minnesota property tax system
accommodates these issues by requiring an annual opinion of value as of January 2nd.
Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this
requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in
determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a
summary of the dominant property types and their associated class rates:
Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values
Property Type Value Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250
Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250
As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in terms of the initial
tax capacity which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further as
commercial properties are subject to additional state based levies while residential properties are
reduced by subsidy factors such as the homestead value exclusion (formerly known as the
homestead credit). Voter approved referenda, on the other hand, are market value based so all
properties are taxed equally on each dollar of property value.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
The Assessment Process
Parcel Review and Valuation
The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of
market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the
properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market
forces at work, the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a
significant role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of
every property in the city including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. As
there are 17,000+ parcels in the city, it is virtually impossible to have complete knowledge of
each property – which may or not sell in a given year.
The Minnesota property tax system therefore requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of
inspection is on a five year rotating schedule (known as the quintile) which may be altered due to
physical change of the property due to new construction, renovations, additions and damage.
The goal of the periodic and interim inspection process is to assess the characteristics and
corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s
competitive position.
It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of
Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. The valuations are modeled by the use of a computer
assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for
each property are maintained in a large data base which calculates the individual valuations
based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property. Annual adjustments
are made to the data tables to mirror market performance based on competitive properties that
have sold during the comparison time period.
The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks,
mortgage companies and others. For example, the mass appraisal system for residential
properties involves the comparison of thousands of properties with the fact-based market
transactions from the same or closely competitive neighborhoods, and market sales of the same
quality and type of property throughout the city. In the appeal process the assessing staff looks
to both the mass valuation models and an individual appraisal analysis for further review.
Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about
the local real estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property
sales using the Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) for each property sale. This information is
frequently augmented with sales and market information obtained regularly from a variety of
professional data services and staff may follow-up with re-inspections in the case where the sale
price indicates that we may have imperfect information.
In all cases, the sales information collected is closely scrutinized and qualified. Evidence
suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a
relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from study. This is important as the
market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons necessary
to make the property assessment.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
The Appeal Process
We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the
property tax system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the
property owner is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties
receive statistic-based adjustments to market value and owners may have differing degrees of
knowledge and perspective on both their own real estate and market performance.
Two important points are stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes:
1. By statute the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We
do not disregard the impact of the distressed sub-market or value-in-use transactions,
but we do emphasis the use of open market and arm’s length sales. This is not only
by legal precedent but also good appraisal methodology… and also allows for a better
understanding of the nuances of our market.
2. Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment can be problematic. While a valid
rationale from the owner perspective, market transactions are facts that set the market.
Comparative assessment (referred to as “equality” in assessor-speak) is handled
through a very well defined process via the County and State level with distinct
performance measurements. These “norms” are further defined by legal precedent by
the MN Tax Court. Formal reports on the issue are published by the MN Department
of Revenue annually.
The assessing staff will re-verify property attributes and share public record sales information
relative to the current assessment period. A very large majority of property owners’ concerns
can be resolved through this informal review. Assessing staff will review and adjust the assessed
market value as warranted prior to the Boards during the informal review process. When we
cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner, the formal appeal options are well
defined which are summarized as:
1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – The St. Louis Park Board is scheduled to convene
on April 13, 2015. The owner is acting as the appellant and notified of the Board process and
desire for fact based materials. The assessing office staff serves as the respondent and prepares a
report for presentation which is presented at the re-convene meeting. The Board hears the
information and makes a determination.
2. County Board of Appeal and Equalization – The owner must appeal at the local level to be
eligible for this Board. An application to appeal at the Hennepin County Board is required by
May 20 and this Board convenes on June 15, 2015. The process is similar as the owner makes
their case and county staff serves as the respondent – and the Board makes the determination.
3. Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions
regarding the 2015 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2016. This venue of appeal has two
divisions to accommodate the scope of the appellants’ case. This method of appeal is much
more formalized and often takes a lengthy period of time to resolve. This avenue of appeals
typically dwarfs the preceding methods in the number of cases, their complexity and the total
valuations/classifications in dispute.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
Big Picture of the Residential Market – Realtor Perspective
Before beginning discussion of the 2015 Assessment, it seems like a good idea to provide a big
picture overview from the perspective of Realtors. For the most part, the broad spectrum of
residential real estate peaked somewhere between 2006 and 2007 throughout most of the metro
area. The following chart is an aggregate of single-family homes, condos and townhomes from
2008 to the end of 2014. It provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park and our
immediate neighbors over a tumultuous time frame.
Historic Median Sale Price – includes Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
% Change % Change
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ’13-to-‘14 ’08-to-‘14
St. Louis Park 227,000 212,500 213,250 185,000 198,450 219,000 230,000 5.0% 1.3%
Edina 389,450 324,900 339,000 339,000 343,875 350,000 380,000 8.6% -2.4%
Golden Valley 263,000 220,000 235,500 199,000 218,500 246,000 247,500 0.6% -5.9%
Hopkins 169,000 160,000 148,000 125,000 159,950 180,500 182,000 0.8% 7.7%
Minnetonka 265,900 245,000 265,713 233,000 255,000 279,000 270,000 -3.2% 1.5%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
In contemplating the figures above, all five communities were within the upper 20% of the metro
at large for overall value retention over the time frame 2007 through 2013. Additionally, we
note that it is extremely important to understand there are significant differences between single-
family homes, condos and townhomes over the time frame and frequently from year-to-year.
Also important… the above data reflects raw sale prices for all MLS based transactions including
the traditional market and the distressed market (foreclosures and short sales).
Further reference on the past year performance is provided by figures for market composition,
cumulative days on market and percent of list price received:
Annual 2014 Market Performance – Aggregate of Single-Family Homes, Condos and Townhomes
Percent Percent Percent Percent of
New Condo & Distressed Days on List Price
# Sales Construction Twnhm Sub-Market Market Received
St. Louis Park 831 4.1% 26.4% 9.6% 67 95.9%
Edina 949 8.5% 34.1% 4.8% 78 95.8%
Golden Valley 344 2.0% 17.7% 9.3% 68 96.0%
Hopkins 192 5.2% 42.7% 20.3% 66 95.5%
Minnetonka 830 3.0% 36.9% 9.2% 71 95.6%
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR)
To conclude the big picture overview, the majority of the ownership based residential real estate
in the city of St. Louis Park has, or is in the later stages of, returning to a state of normalized
market conditions. Days on market and list ratios are tightening which is typically associated
with a healthy and advancing market. The only major sectors which remain up in the air are the
low end residential stock and a few condo complexes; both of which continue to stabilize.
With that foreword, we now turn to a summary of the 2015 assessment roll.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
Summary of the St. Louis Park 2015 Assessment Roll
The 2015 Notice of Valuation and Classification commence mailing in March of each year.
Each notice reflects the property value and classification for a two year period with the format as
required by the MN Department of Revenue. As of January 2, 2015, the total valuation of the
city stands at $5,839,523,800. Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-
year trending is explored in the chart following.
Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparison of 2015 assessment versus 2014)
Single-Family Residential + 4.0% Static Basis versus + 4.9% with Improvements
Condominium + 8.5% Static Basis versus + 9.8% with Improvements
Townhomes + 9.1% Static Basis versus +10.1% with Improvements
Apartments +12.1% Static Basis versus +13.3% with Improvements
Commercial-Industrial + 1.7% Static Basis versus + 3.6% with Improvements
St. Louis Park Total + 3.6% Static Basis versus + 5.3% with Improvements
Value change on a static basis reflects an apple-to-apple comparison and does not include
improvement values arising from renovations and new construction. While the static basis
comparison is interesting and inherently a primary factor in setting an assessment via the mass
appraisal method, the value change including improvements is much more accurate in terms of
understanding the economic activity for the community and also reflects the related tax capacity
changes from a total perspective.
Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the report sections following.
We begin our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into the three dominant
categories… low density (single-family homes), mid-to-high density ownership based (condos
and townhomes) and apartment units. The following chart provides a current overview of the
total residential stock:
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
Housing Unit Composition – St. Louis Park for the 2015 Assessment
Single-family homes comprise just under one-half of the total housing units. In setting the
assessment, our contemplation included the traditional sales review, on-market listings at
multiple points throughout the year, accessing MLS listings as well as statistics for the traditional
and distressed markets, quintile inspections (approximately 20% of the stock is reviewed each
year) and, of course, new construction and renovation permit reviews.
St. Louis Park is broken down into 35 distinct neighborhoods which are configured to local
history rather than cohesive competitive influences. Of the 32 neighborhoods with single-family
properties, all are increasing in valuations for the 2015 Assessment. The neighborhood
adjustments ranged from 0.0% to 10.2% with the majority of neighborhoods between +2.0% to
+7.0%. While these are overall trends it is very important to understand that individual valuation
changes are outside of these ranges. Within each neighborhood, the valuations are mixed as the
market continues to stabilize with both the 2014 and 2015 assessments having considerably more
individual properties moving up versus down for the first time since 2007. We also track the
year-over-year change on a rolling five-year period along with the annual sales studies and feel
confident that the 2015 assessment of single-family properties is of the best quality we can
derive by mass modeling.
As you can surmise, much of our attention has been on reviewing the price brackets
(stratifications). Our single-family stock is normally dominated by the pricing bracket of 160,000
to 300,000 in value. When combining reduced discounts on foreclosures, a lower number of
distressed properties being absorbed and the mixed competitive reaction on the traditional
market, there is an indisputably wider degree of variation in the stratifications over the past year.
These issues will be reviewed at further length in the discussion of the assessment report.
There are forty-six (46) distinct Condominium complexes in the community with the addition
of Calhoun Hill for this assessment. The complexes are a decidedly diverse stock in terms of
structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, row-house, lo-rise, hi-rise and most
everything in between).
11,614
8,832
3,505
434 114
Single-Family
Apartments
Condo & Townhome
Duplex
Cooperatives
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
As noted in prior years, condos and townhomes tend to be considerably more volatile in
valuations. This is due to three major factors in our opinion… first, condos tend to have an in-
complex sub-market which simply does not apply to single-family homes; next, foreclosure
absorptions are much more likely to overwhelm the traditional market and did so in several
complexes from 2011 to 2013 – which are now bouncing back with very rapid sale price
increases; and finally, we have seen more complexes move from owner occupancy to
predominantly investor/rental which tend to have lower valuations as the purchase decision is
driven more heavily by investment cash flow rather than stable occupancy and ownership.
The local market exhibits a very wide pricing structure which historically ranged from
70,000/unit to over 500,000/unit. For 2013, the lower price bracket extended down to just below
40,000 per unit. The valuation adjustment for all complexes was -7.5% for the 2013 assessment,
+7.8% for the 2014 assessment and +8.5% for the 2015 assessment. Within the full universe of
complexes… three (3) complexes were adjusted downward for equalization reasons while all
others ranged from flat to major valuation increases. Six (6) complexes were adjusted by more
than +10.0% for 2015 with the largest complex based valuation increase at +29.6% -- with
distinct correlation to the larger value increases being in the lower price brackets. These issues
will be reviewed at further length during the discussion of the assessment report.
There are nineteen (19) distinct Townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of
them are relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are
predominantly in the 20-70 unit count bracket with two larger complexes. The bulk of this
product type reached a valuation nadir circa 2013 and has been improving with both the 2014
and 2015 assessments. The two larger complexes are telling slightly different stories. Lohman’s
began stabilizing for the 2013 assessment and is moving confidently forward at 7.1% and 10.4%
increases in the last two valuation periods. The townhome element of Greensboro dropped very
hard for the 2012 and 2013 assessments and is moving upward for the 2014 and 2015
assessments (case in point… the four assessments were -24.8%, -19.3%, +12.9% and +26.8% to
bring the townhome component of the complex almost fully back from the tumultuous market).
In general, the market forces at play in this property type are similar to that of the condos with
several mitigating factors. They include a higher average unit value which seems to be more
economically durable. It is also our perception that the physical designs tend to be less
problematic with few exceptions while the rate of distressed transactions and on-market listings
have tended to be less dramatic.
The Apartment sector for the 2012 assessment was up +4.9% which included very little new
construction value due to project timing. For the 2013 assessment, the valuation increase was at
+8.2% for the market based adjustment and +13.9% including new construction - with few of the
newer complexes at full valuation. For the 2014 assessment, the market based adjustment was
+8.2% and with new construction was at +20.2% as multiple complexes reached value maturity.
For the 2015 assessment, the market based adjustment was at +12.1% overall – notable as the
metro area set a new record in total transaction volume …and… the market advance now extends
to all sub-sectors. Including new construction the total value increase was at 13.3% with partial
values on the Millennium (158 units) and Eliot Park (138 units and 2 single-family homes) while
Comfort First Assisted Living & Memory Care Center (22 units) was fully complete.
The Class A and B markets (newer, multi-story buildings with high level amenity packages) are
clearly in high demand from the perspective of the investment community which is normally
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
locally based with recent transition to multiple out-of-state investment grade buyers. The market
adjustment for the A’s was pegged at +4.8% as most of our stock was already near the values
seen in multiple trophy transactions. The B stock continued to increase in value with this sector
being market adjusted by 16.3% for the 2015 assessment.
Meanwhile, the C market (commonly referred to as less than 3 stories, built circa 1960-1975)
comprises over 51% of the total apartment unit count in St. Louis Park. These complexes were
essentially stable to up slightly for the 2014 assessment. There were a large number of class C
sales throughout Hennepin County during 2014 which clearly indicated that this sub-sector is
rapidly advancing in value although with a word of caution. While it is true that the transactions
are clearly at elevated values, the dominant buyer perception is to complete nominal value add
improvements (counter-tops, fridge, stove, laminate flooring) while also accepting lower yields
in their purchase decision (i.e. the capitalization rate). This performance metric is decidedly
different than the A&B stock where the lower yield expectations are in conjunction with
significant rental increase assumptions. For the C stock, rental increases have been seen but
nowhere near the trending for the newer stock. As such… we have adjusted the C stock values
to mirror the market movements but we caution that we do not foresee this trend to be long term
sustainable and likely to be closely related to interest rates.
The Commercial and Industrial properties have been relatively stable over the past four
years in terms of value growth albeit with their own interesting performance issues. It is
important to realize that these properties comprise about 5% of our total parcel count while
accounting for 21.3% of the total value and 35.8% of the total tax capacity of the community.
For the 2014 assessment review, we noted two dominant issues in setting the assessment. First,
the 2013 assessment ratio performance was nigh spot on the market – at 99.0% with more
qualified sale transactions versus many preceding years. Second, the sale verification and
equalization of this sector is much more closely scrutinized across city/county boundaries as
these properties tend to compete on a much larger geographic scale.
For the 2015 assessment, the going in ratio from 2014 was again dialed in – at 96.0% although
the number of sales was down slightly. This assessment performance, while very good, also
means that true market movements are already closely mirrored which in turn means that there is
minimal room in which to move statistically.
The city’s commercial-industrial value increased for the 2011, 2012 and 2013 assessment
periods while many other communities were less robust. We continued to add new
construction value in both the 2014 and 2015 assessments. For commercial and industrial
use properties, especially for “mature” communities, continuous redevelopment is vital to
long term health. St. Louis Park has been remarkably fortunate in this regard. Significant
factors in this performance have included the West End development area, major market
attention to the future SWLRT station locales along with multiple smaller developments
interspersed throughout the community. When the analysis turns to the existing stock, however,
the picture is far more stable as is exhibited by the tight ratio performance as measured by actual
sales in the three preceding assessments.
Turning to the industrial stock, stability to a slightly declining market trend is the watchword.
This sub-market was reduced for the 2010 assessment by 2.1%, reduced again for the 2011
assessment by 0.6%, reduced again by 3.0% for 2012, essentially flat for the 2013 assessment,
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
down 0.5% for the 2014 assessment and up 0.3% for the 2015 assessment. The primary issue in
this sector is that the majority of our structural stock is older, of lesser functional utility and is
competing with newer stock in locales that previously had major valuation declines. This
phenomenon is not likely to change dramatically in the short term future – our land values as set
by market participants tend to limit the likelihood of new industrial construction projects which
are primarily being located in the outer rings of the metro area where land costs are much lower.
Turning to the commercial stock, the two primary drivers are office and retail.
For the 2013 and 2014 assessments, the class A and upper B office properties were performing
well and there have been multiple high profile sale and lease transactions throughout the metro
area. For the 2015 assessment, selective value increases on the premium office properties were
made to bring them in line with market sales and with further indications of increasing rent rates
which will improve operational performance. The locational focus of these value increases were
near the West End and the I-394 corridor. These trends have only partially translated into the
class B and C stock where valuations were mostly flat to slightly up.
Another dominant use category of significant note is that of retail which has performed well in
the west sector with a relatively low vacancy rate over the last few years. Two major trophy
transactions have occurred recently with each having an interesting tale.
The Shops of West End sold for $117.1 million in December 2014. Properties included in the
sale were the Cub grocery store, the Icon movie theater, the at-grade retail/restaurant/service
space and the 2nd story office. This sale was not surprising given the successful draw that the
businesses in the area have enjoyed. News coverage placed this as the highest retail sale price
per square foot in the metro area for the year and the sale price did include consideration for the
Latitude 360 entertainment venue which was not built out or actively in use as of the date of
assessment. For perspective, this sale represents a value density of $7.7 million per acre of
developed land (15.2 acres).
The Shops of Knollwood sold for $106.7 million per the CRV filed in January 2015 – further
information on this sale continues to be developed as we work with the out-of-state buyer. The
properties included were our other Cub grocery store, the vacated TCF bank parcel, the Burger
King, Spire Credit Union and the primary mall parcel. The mall itself was in the process of
being repositioned from a mix of enclosed mall with large unusable areas and in-line retail to a
true Mid-Box style of in-line retail with addition of major tenants and the satellite retail building
near the intersection of Blake and Highway 7. This sale was not surprising given the structural
and use repositioning but it was a relatively high value per square foot for the structural
improvements when transacted – this sale also appears to set the sale price relative to the
improvements as complete as not all bays were fully built-out or in use as of the assessment date.
On the perspective issue, this sale reflects a density of $2.8 million per acre (37.6 acres).
To close, the next two pages of this report provide additional overview for the 2015 assessment.
The first page reflects the single-family neighborhoods over the past five year quintile cycle and
with the current median assessed market value. The second page provides a complex breakdown
of the condos and townhomes by unit count and median market value (the five year history is
multiple pages but can be provided if the Council desires). Further discussion on all of the major
market segments will be made at the upcoming discussion.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
St. Louis Park -- Single Family Residential Properties
Historical Change of the Assessed Market Values (Quintile Cycle)
Parcel 2015
# Neighborhood Reference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Counts Median
City-Wide Basis > > > -2.5% -4.3% -2.3% 4.8% 4.0%
11,634 227,500
Quintile Counts 2,471 2,926 1,355 2,554 2,289
1 Shelard Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
2 Kilmer -4.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.8 245 201,000
3 Crestview -1.7 -1.8 -4.1 2.2 9.4 69 337,200
4 Westwood Hills -2.0 -5.6 -3.7 1.5 4.9 293 369,900
5 Cedar Manor 2.4 -8.3 1.2 2.2 2.9 576 214,600
6 Northside (x) Willow Park -4.4 -8.9 -6.6 8.9 3.0 301 221,700
7 Pennsylvania Park -7.6 -4.5 -4.9 4.5 8.6 305 219,700
8 Eliot -2.3 -2.9 -6.5 8.3 0.0 510 200,000
9 Blackstone -1.8 -1.8 -5.9 2.0 1.9 95 176,900
10 Cedarhurst -0.9 -1.8 -4.6 6.0 2.1 49 202,500
11 Eliot View -4.5 -6.9 -5.8 1.0 9.6 167 204,400
12 Cobblecrest -1.6 -4.9 -5.7 11.3 6.2 384 252,000
13 Minnehaha 0.5 -3.7 -5.3 10.6 0.6 129 315,000
14 Amhurst N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
15 Aquila -2.9 -12.6 4.8 4.5 6.3 506 183,300
16 Oak Hill 0.4 -13.6 -0.3 5.2 8.4 639 196,200
17 Texa Tonka -3.6 -10.2 -0.2 8.1 8.7 386 193,600
18 Bronx Park -2.2 -4.2 -6.5 8.4 7.7 997 217,500
19 Lenox -2.1 -5.2 -4.1 7.9 2.0 835 208,100
20 Sorenson -4.1 0.2 -4.1 9.6 0.0 458 217,800
21 Birchwood -3.2 -3.9 -1.4 0.4 4.6 636 228,400
22 Lake Forest -3.0 -4.6 -0.6 3.6 4.7 195 550,800
23 Fern Hill -3.5 -3.2 -1.7 2.4 3.1 962 356,200
24 Triangle -5.2 0.0 -0.7 3.6 0.0 105 210,000
25 Wolfe Park 0.6 -3.2 -1.8 5.4 6.7 16 230,600
26 Minikada Oaks 0.0 -4.5 -0.4 6.9 8.7 77 336,000
27 Minikada Vista -3.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.7 800 371,400
28 Browndale -2.4 0.0 1.6 5.0 2.9 553 332,000
29 Brookside 1.9 -4.4 2.8 3.3 0.0 326 219,800
30 Brooklawns -4.1 -2.8 1.8 0.9 0.0 150 228,400
31 Elmwood -3.0 -2.5 -6.2 3.6 6.0 267 243,400
32 Meadowbrook N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
33 South Oak Hill 0.1 -6.8 -5.3 10.2 2.5 288 199,400
34 Westdale -2.1 -3.0 -1.9 0.4 10.2 106 217,600
35 Creekside -4.0 0.0 -8.6 9.7 3.6 170 272,100
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Title: 2015 Assessment Report
St. Louis Park -- Condos & Townhomes -- Assess 2015
Dist Condos # Median
Dist Townhomes # Median
Code Complex Name Units Mkt Value
Code Complex Name Units Mkt Value
AC Aquila Commons Coop 106 174,400
BG Brunswick Gables 7 196,000
MO Monterey Coop 8 81,700
DB Dan-Bar 4 171,100
BR Bridgewalk 92 78,600
EW Excelsior Way 38 91,800
BK Brookside Lofts 41 191,100
GR2 Greensboro 96 130,000
CH Calhoun Hill 7 Pending
HE Hampshire Estates 8 130,700
CT Cedar Trails 280 91,300
HH Hampshire House 13 135,000
CS Cedar Trails South 32 157,500
LL Lamplighter Park 5 321,200
CW Cedar Trails West 48 165,250
LA Lohman's Amhurst 276 150,900
CH Coach Homes 128 93,700
ME Medley Row 22 240,000
EV Elmwood Village 77 265,000
MP Monterey Park 18 321,000
EL Excelsior Lofts 86 215,300
PC Princeton Ct 14 390,800
55+ 55+ Sr Condos 60 170,200
QC Quentin Ct 10 387,900
FH Fern Hill 30 171,000
SH Shamrock 16 133,200
TG Grand Northwest 96 352,900
SK Skyehill 31 223,300
GW Grand Way 124 239,200
SW Sungate West 48 131,000
GR Greensboro 164 59,600
VP Victoria Ponds 72 337,500
HV Harmony Vista 74 175,200
WT Westwood Twnhmes 38 171,100
IB Inglewood Boutique 6 272,250
ZA Zarthan Apt 18 165,200
LN Lynn Ave Condos 12 160,200
ZP Zarthan Park 16 169,000
LY Lynwood Condos 11 145,000
MC Monterey Place 30 211,150
MW Monterey West 7 229,000
MR Murphy's Ridge 4 139,400
NP Natchez Place 26 140,100
OX Oxford Gardens 12 83,400
PW Pointe West 86 261,300
Outlined complexes have active Housing Improvement
PK Parkside Urban Flats 46 Pending
Associations (HIA's); balance information may be
PP Pondview Park 30 105,900
obtained by calling 952-924-2694. The general info
S1 Sungate I 20 100,100
number for special assessments and delinquent
S2 Sungate II 26 130,850
utilities is 952-924-2111 (Utility Billing/Finance).
S3 Sungate III 14 173,200
SR Sunset Ridge 240 92,900
TF Twin Fountains 88 83,300
VL Village Lofts 60 162,200
WM Westmarke 64 178,650
WE Westmoreland 72 73,100
WO West Oaks 75 198,700
WV Westwood Villa 66 72,200
WL Wolfe Lake 131 98,600
WF Wooddale Flats 34 Pending
WY Wynmoor 56 77,700
33 3300 On The Park 128 112,500
35 35th St Condos 11 110,100
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. As a follow-up to previous discussions, this
report provides the Council with a draft policy that would require the inclusion of affordable
housing units in multi-unit market rate residential developments receiving financial assistance
from the City.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed policy reflect the Council’s overall intent to
adopt an inclusionary housing strategy for promoting the creation of affordable housing units in
the community? Does the Council still support offering a “Payment-In-Lieu” option in the
policy? Is the Council interested in exploring the merits of incorporating incentives related to
density bonuses and parking reductions into the policy?
SUMMARY: In the fall of 2014, staff presented the Council with a proposed framework for the
creation of a strategy that would require the inclusion of affordable housing units in new market
rate multi-unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the City.
Staff also informed the Council that the MN Challenge Project had contacted the City and
offered to provide technical assistance and support in the development of an Inclusionary
Housing Policy for St. Louis Park. The purpose of the MN Challenge Project, a joint effort
between the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, the Housing Preservation Project and the
McKnight Foundation, is to identify practical ways to reduce the cost of developing affordable
housing.
The Council supported the framework and proposed strategy and directed staff to work with MN
Challenge to develop a draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the City.
Over the past several months, staff participated in a number of workgroup sessions and worked
one-on-one with the MN Challenge Project staff and Cornerstone staff, a national housing
research agency, which is providing technical assistance in developing the City’s Policy.
Attached is a draft policy for your review that is reflective of staff’s work with the MN
Challenge Project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy
2014 Affordable Rents Based on Income and Bedroom Size
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In August 2014, the Council adopted revised Housing Goals. The revised
goals address the City’s commitment to promoting quality multi-family development and
promoting affordable housing options for low and moderate income households. The Council
discussed options for promoting the creation of affordable housing in new multi-family
residential developments and directed staff to develop a strategy that would require the inclusion
of affordable housing units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving
financial assistance from the City.
At a subsequent meeting, staff presented a framework for an Inclusionary Housing Policy that
would apply to market rate multi-unit developments receiving financial assistance from the City.
Staff also informed the Council that the MN Challenge Project had contacted the City and
offered to provide technical assistance and support in the development of an Inclusionary
Housing Policy for St. Louis Park. The purpose of the MN Challenge, a joint effort between the
Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, the Housing Preservation Project and McKnight
Foundation, is to identify practical ways to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing.
The Council supported the framework and general criteria in the proposed strategy and directed
staff to work with MN Challenge to develop a draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the City.
Since last fall, the MN Challenge Project has facilitated a series of meetings attended by
representatives from a number of municipalities, the County, SWLRT Housing Committee and
Met Council. MN Challenge obtained a grant to bring in Cornerstone, a national housing
research organization, to provide additional technical assistance including: education, research,
review of example policies/ordinances and utilization of a tool to test the financial impact of
income and affordability restrictions on a market rate development. MN Challenge’s goal is to
develop a practical guide for cities to use in developing Inclusionary Housing policies while
assisting St. Louis Park in the development of a “Policy” that addresses the specific goals of our
community.
What follows is a brief summary of what is contained in the policy. A complete version of the
policy is attached.
Draft Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy (“Policy”)
Purpose: The purpose of the “Policy” is to require the inclusion of affordable units in new
market rate multi-unit residential developments that receive financial assistance from the City.
a. The proposed “Policy” will allow the income and affordability requirements to be
fulfilled in the following ways:
• On-site development of units within the proposed market rate ownership or rental
residential development; or
• Development of income and rent restricted rental units at another site approved by the
City; or
• At the discretion of the City, payment of a fee to the City in lieu of developing any
income or rent restricted housing units.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
b. Affordability Elements:
• Affordability Level:10% of units at 60% area median income(AMI) for rental units, 80%
area median income (AMI) for ownership units
1. 60% affordability is consistent with affordability level requirements for the
federally funded affordable housing Tax Credit Program.
2. The intent of the City’s “Policy” is to establish a strategy that will result in the
creation of affordable units in market rate developments where it would not
otherwise occur. The policy should not create a burden so onerous that it
becomes a deterrent or unreasonable constraint on residential development in SLP
or eliminates the developer’s economic benefit. In particular, the requirement
should not create a deterrent for developers of market rate residential housing
with little or no experience in the development of affordable housing.
3. Setting a moderate affordability requirement provides a greater possibility that
developers can absorb the cost associated with the creation of affordable units
without having to access additional funding subsidies and/or sources.
• Length of Affordability Requirement: A minimum of 25 years.
• Bedroom Mix of Affordable Units: The bedroom unit type of the affordable units will be
reflective of the development’s market rate units and will be distributed throughout the
development.
• Building Size: The “Policy” will only be applicable to buildings that have 10 or more
units.
• Tenant Eligibility: Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income
eligible families during the period of affordability. An income eligible family may remain
in the rental inclusionary dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as the income
of the family does not exceed one-hundred twenty percent (120%) of the applicable AMI.
• Cost Mitigating Incentives: Although not part of the proposed Policy, two incentives that
the City could consider exploring further to assist in mitigating the financial impact
associated with the development of affordable units to developers while remaining cost
neutral to the City include:
1. Density Bonus: Allow developers including affordable units to exceed current
density restrictions.
2. Parking Requirement Reduction: Allow developers including affordable housing
units to have a reduction in the number of parking stalls required.
Staff will review the Policy in more depth at the Monday’s meeting.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue to collaborate with the MN Challenge Project and
Cornerstone to incorporate Council’s comments and direction into the Policy. Staff will also
present the draft Policy to the Housing Authority for review and comment. Staff will return to
Council with a final draft for review and discussion prior to approval. Following approval of the
Policy, staff will continue to work with the MN Challenge Project to develop processes and
procedures to guide program implementation.
I. Inclusionary Housing Policy
This Policy promotes high quality housing located in the community for households with
a variety of income levels, ages and sizes in order to meet the City's goal of preserving and
promoting economicall y diverse housing options in our community.
The City recognizes the need to provide affordable housing to households of a broad range
of income levels in order to maintain a diverse population and to provide housing for those who
live or work in the City. Without intervention, the trend toward rising housing prices in new
developments will continue to increase. As a result, this Policy is being adopted to ensure
that a reasonable proportion of each new development receiving City financial assistance
include units affordable to low and moderate income households and working families.
The requirements set forth in this Policy further the City’s Housing Goals and the City’s
Housing Goals and City’s Comprehensive Plan to create and preserve affordable housing
opportunities. These requirements are intended to provide a structure for participation by both
the public and private sectors in the production of affordable housing.
II. Applicability and Minimum Project Size
Market Rate Multi-Unit Development Receiving City Financial Assistance
This Policy applies to market rate multi-unit residential developments that receive
financial assistance from the City and includes:
(1) new developments that create at least 10 multi-family dwelling units; or
(2) any mixed use building that creates at least 10 multi-family dwelling units; or
(3) renovation or reconstruction of an existing building that contains multi-
family dwelling units, and that increases the number of dwelling units in
the original structure by at least 10; or
(4) any change in use of all or part of an existing building from a non-
residential use to a residential use that has at least 10 dwelling units.
III. Affordable Dwelling Units
General requirement
A development that is subject to this Policy shall provide a number of affordable dwelling units
equal to no less than ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units in the development.
The units designated as affordable will be subject to the requirements listed below.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 4
Calculation of units required.
(1) For development of multi-family dwelling units:
A. The required number of Affordable Dwelling Uni ts is based on the total
number of dwelling units that are approved by the City.
B. To calculate the number of Affordable Dwelling Units required in a
development the total number of approved Dwelling Units shall be
multiplied by ten percent (10%). If the final calculation includes a
fraction, the fraction of a unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole
number.
C. If a property with existing units is remodeled and/or expanded,
additional Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided and shall be
based upon the number of additional units approved by the City. A
requirement to provide Affordable Dwelling Units shall be triggered if
the increase in the number of units is 10 or greater than. Affordability Level
The required affordable dwelling units shall meet an income eligibility standard for families of
sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI) for rental inclusionary dwelling units and
eighty percent (80%) for owner occupied inclusionary dwelling units.
Rent and Sale Price Level
The monthly rental price for affordable dwelling units shall include rent and utility costs and
shall be based on sixty percent (60%) AMI for the metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park
adjusted for bedroom size calculated annually by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits
for the Housing Tax Credit Program.
The qualifying sale price for an owner-occupied inclusionary dwelling unit shall include property
taxes, homeowner’s insurance, principal payment and interest, private mortgage insurance,
monthly ground lease, and shall be based on eighty percent (80%) AMI for the metropolitan area
that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size calculated annually by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Period of Affordability
In developments subject to this Policy, the period of affordability for the restricted housing units
shall be at least twenty-five (25) years.
Location of Affordable Dwelling Units
Except as otherwise specifically authorized by this Policy, the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be
located within the development.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 5
IV. Standards for Inclusionary Rental Units Size and Design of Affordable Units
The size and design of the affordable housing units should be consistent and compatible with the
market rate units in the rest of the project and is subject to the approval of the City. The
affordable units do not have to be identical to the market rate units and if smaller than the other
units with the same number of bedrooms in the development, must be approved by the City
Council.
Exterior/Interior appearance.
The exterior materials and design of the affordable housing units in any development subject to
these regulations shall be compatible in style and quality with the market rate units in the
development. The interior finish and quality of construction of the affordable housing units shall
at a minimum be comparable to entry level rental or ownership housing in the City. Construction
of the affordable housing units shall be concurrent with construction of market-rate dwelling
units
V. Integration of Affordable Housing Units
Distribution of affordable housing units.
The affordable units shall be incorporated into the overall project unless expressly allowed to be
located in a separate building or a different location by the City Council. The Affordable
Housing Performance Agreement (as described in Section VIII) shall include a description of the
location of affordable housing units. Affordable housing units shall be located within the
development, unless the applicant is granted an exception or alternative to providing on-site
housing as described in Section VI. Affordable units shall be distributed throughout the building.
Number of bedrooms in the affordable units.
The affordable housing units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as
the market rate units. The mix of unit types of the affordable units shall be established in the
Affordable Housing Plan to be approved by the City Council.
Tenants
Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the
period of affordability. An income eligible family may remain in the rental inclusionary dwelling
unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the family does not exceed one-
hundred twenty percent (120%) of the applicable AMI.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 6
VI. Alternatives to On-Site Development of Affordable Housing Units
This section provides alternatives to the construction of Affordable Dwelling Units onsite as a
way to comply with this Policy. The alternatives are listed in subsection (3), below.
(1) The alternatives must be:
A. approved by the City Council, and
B. agreed to by the applicant in an Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.
C. Applicant must show evidence acceptable to the City that a formal
commitment to the proposed alternative is in place.
(2) This Section does not apply unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
City Council the following:
A. the alternative provides an equivalent or greater amount of Affordable Dwelling
Units in a way that the City Council determines better achieves the goals,
objectives and policies of the city’s Housing Goals and Comprehensive Plan
than providing them on-site; or
B. providing on-site Affordable Dwelling Units is not economically feasible,
C. will not cause the City to incur any net cost as a result of the alternative
compliance mechanism; or
D. it is impossible to provide the units on-site because of Federal or State law
(3) The City Council may approve one or more of the following options to providing
Affordable Dwelling Units that are required by this Policy.
A. Dedication of Existing Units: Restricting existing dwelling units which are
approved by the City Council as suitable affordable housing dwelling units
through covenants, contractual arrangements, or resale restrictions. The City
Council shall determine whether the form and content of the restrictions
comply with this Policy. Off-site units shall be located within the City of St.
Louis Park. The restriction of such existing units must result in the creation of
units that are of equivalent value, quality, and size of the permanently Affordable
Dwelling Units which would have been constructed on-site if this alternative had
not been utilized.
B. Offsite construction of affordable housing within the City. Offsite
construction of units should be located in proximity to public transit service at
a site approved by the City.
C. Participation in the construction of affordable units by another developer on a
different site within the City.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 7
D. A payment in lieu of housing. The City Council may approve a payment in
lieu (hereinafter a "Payment") of providing Affordable Dwelling Units, in
accordance with the criteria established below. The City Council shall
establish the Payment amounts by Resolution.
a) Applicability.
The City Council may accept a Payment for all or part of the affordable
housing obligation imposed by this Policy. A Payment may be approved if
the payment provides opportunity for an equivalent or greater amount
of Affordable Dwelling Units in a way that the City Council determines
better achieves the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
b) Amount of Payment.
To Be Determined: Example
For a waiver of rental inclusionary dwelling units, a Payment in lieu can be
made equal to twenty percent (20%) of the appraised value of the average
unit value times the number of units waived.
For a waiver of owner occupied inclusionary dwelling units is an amount
equal to twenty percent (20%) of the average sale price of the owner
occupied units in each development for each inclusionary unit that will not be
provided.
c) Use of Payment.
The Payment shall be made to the City and reserved to be used for affordable
housing purposes.
E. An alternative proposed by the applicant that directly provides or enables the
provision of affordable housing units within the City. The alternative shall be
approved b y the City Council and made a condition of approval of the
Application.
VII. Affordable Housing Plan
(1) Applicability
Applications that are subject to this Policy shall include an Affordable Housing Plan as
described below. An Affordable Housing Plan describes how the application complies
with each of the applicable requirements of this Policy.
(2) Approval
A. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be approved by the City Council.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 8
B. Minor modifications to the plan are subject to approval by the City Manager.
Major modifications are subject to approval by the City Council. Items that are
considered major and minor will be designated in the Affordable Housing
Plan.
(3) Contents.
The Affordable Housing Plan shall include at least the following:
A. General information about the nature and scope of the development subject to
these regulations.
B. For Applicants that request an alternative to on-site provision of affordable
housing, evidence that the proposed alternative will further affordable housing
opportunities in the City to an equivalent or greater extent than compliance
with the otherwise applicable on-site requirements of this Policy.
C. The total number of market rate units and Affordable Dwelling Units in the
development.
D. The floor plans for the affordable dwelling units showing the number of
bedrooms and bathrooms in each Unit.
E. The approximate square footage of each Affordable Dwelling Unit.
F. Building floor plans and site plans showing the location of each Affordable
Dwelling Unit.
G. The pricing for each Affordable Dwelling Unit. The pricing of each unit shall
be determined at time of approval. At time of sale thi s price may be
adjusted if there has been a change in the median income or a change in the
formulas used in this ordinance.
H. The order of completion of market rate and Affordable Dwelling Units.
I. Documentation and specifications regarding the exterior appearance, materials
and finishes of the development for each of the Affordable Dwelling Units
illustrating that the appearance of affordable units are comparable to the
appearance of the market-rate units.
J. An Affordable Unit Management Plan documenting policies and
procedures for administering the affordable housing units in accordance
with the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.
K. Any and all other information that the City Manager may require that is
needed to achieve the Council’s affordable housing goals.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 9
VIII. Recorded Agreements, Conditions and Restrictions
(1) An Affordable Housing Performance Agreement shall be executed between the City
and an Applicant, in a form approved by the City Attorney, based on the Affordable
Housing Plan described in Section VII, which formally sets forth development
approval and requirements to achieve Affordable Housing in accordance with this
policy and location criteria. The Agreement shall identify:
a. the location, number, type, and size of affordable housing units to be constructed;
b. sales and/or rental terms; occupancy requirements;
c. a timetable for completion of the units; and
d. restrictions to be placed on the units to ensure their affordability and any terms
contained in the approval resolution by the City Council as applicable.
e. if a Payment-in-lieu of housing fee is to be part of compliance with these
requirements, the Agreement shall identify the amount of fees to be paid and the
time of payment.
(2) The applicant or owner shall execute any and all documents deemed necessary b y the
City Manager, including, without limitation, restrictive covenants and other related
instruments, to ensure the affordability of the affordable housing units in accordance
with this Policy.
(3) The applicant or owner must prepare and record all documents, restrictions,
easements, covenants, and/or agreements that are specified by the City Council as
conditions of approval of the application prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance
Permit for any development subject to this Policy.
(4) Documents described above shall be recorded in the Hennepin County Registry of
Deeds as appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 10
Affordable Rents Based on Income and Bedroom Size
2014 Affordable Rents by Bedroom Size
Household
Income
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
30% AMI $435 $466 $560 $646 $721 $796 $870
50% AMI $726 $778 $933 $1078 $1202 $1326 $1450
60% AMI $871 $933 $1120 $1293 $1443 $1592 $1740
80% AMI $1176 $1260 $1511 $1668 $1813 $1950 $2082
2015 Income Limits by Household Size
Household
Income
Percent
1
2
3
4
5
6
30% AMI $18,200 $20,800 $23,400 $26,000 $28,410 $32,570
50% AMI $30,350 $34,650 $39,000 $43,300 $46,800 $50,250
60% AMI $36,400 $41,600 $46,800 $51,950 $56,150 $60,300
80% AMI $48,550 $55,450 $62,400 $65,800 $69,300 $74,900
2014/2015 HUD Fair Market Rents: Minneapolis-St. Paul
Bedroom Size
0 1 2 3 4
$641 $796 $996 $1403 $1656
St. Louis Park Average Rents: Maxfield 2013 Comprehensive Housing Study
Bedroom Size
0 1 2 2 + Den 3
$752 $1231 $1,272 $1500 $1523
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Page 11
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Environment & Sustainability Commission 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Work Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with
the 2014 Annual Report and a summary of the 2015 Work Plan of the Environment and
Sustainability Commission (ESC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the ESC in alignment with the expectations
of the City Council? Does the City Council wish to meet with the ESC at a future study
session?
SUMMARY: Per policy, the 2014 Annual Report and a summary of the 2015 Work Plan of the
ESC are submitted for your review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: ESC 2014 Annual Report & 2015 Work Plan Summary
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineer Project Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Environment and Sustainability Commission
2014 Annual Report & 2015 Summary Work Plan
The Environment and Sustainability Commission: The purpose of the Environment and
Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP shall be to:
1. Provide recommendations to advance city goals, policies, and programs.
2. Provide advice and assistance to staff and council through collaboration.
3. Provide leadership in engaging the community, encouraging relationships and
partnerships with neighborhoods, special interest groups, religious institutions,
business leaders, and other commissions.
4. Serve as a conduit for environmental and sustainable information, topics, and
direction to and from residents and the public.
Activities as a Commission
The ESC establishing operational Work Groups on a number of key topic areas to develop action
plans and continued its on-going effort to educate Commission members on the sustainability
efforts by other municipalities, the City of St. Louis Park operations and policies as they deal
with sustainability goals, and the tools available to reach sustainability goals. The Commission
went through a two-evening Workshop on Sustainability and the Natural Step Framework to
develop a shared awareness and understanding of sustainability, conduct a baseline sustainability
assessment, create a sustainability vision and develop a sustainability plan, in addition to
assessing the potential value of such an approach for the City. Most monthly meetings included
guest speakers, such as City Staff, Xcel Energy and U of M extension service. The topics have
ranged from surface water management and pesticide use to energy assessments and community
solar gardens. This educational aspect of the commission will continue into 2015 with additional
topics and guest speakers at meetings.
Initiatives Undertaken
During the past year both the commission and work groups have identified potential
sustainability initiatives for participation by the City. The Commission approved an
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy that was forwarded to staff for review,
subsequently revised and resubmitted to the staff for review. Other initiatives have included the
PACE Program, B3 energy analysis and the Partners in Energy program. The Commission
developed and approved a logo and website to increase public awareness of the commission and
to set the ground work for future communications through social media. The Commission also
gave input on the proposed Environment and Sustainability Coordinator position.
Work Group Plans
The COMMUNICATIONS WORK GROUP goals are to raise awareness of sustainability as
well as our commission within St. Louis Park and encourage community involvement. The
Communications Work Group will also work closely with the Commission, city staff and the
community to help develop and implement a vision for sustainability within St. Louis Park. The
Communications Work Group will explore a number of tactics including the following:
• Creating a stand-alone Sustainable SLP web page
• Setting up social media platforms to share news and information about sustainability
• Using the Ideas in the Park program to encourage community involvement
• Developing stories about successes in sustainability for placement in local neighborhood
newsletters, the city’s newsletter, and the local newspaper
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
• Helping promote events including existing classes and presentations that highlight
sustainability themes and actions
• Designing posters, t-shirts, decals and other visual aides to increase awareness of
Sustainable SLP
The EDUCATION AND ACTION WORK GROUP goals are to offer a wide of opportunities
for learning about sustainability and to support efforts to encourage action and sustainable
behaviors for everyone in St. Louis Park, including the City Council and staff, citizens,
businesses, schools, congregations, nonprofits and other institutions. Our strategy is to
demonstrate that sustainability is a positive, fun, inspiring win-win-win-win-win opportunity to
save money, time, energy and resources while creating a healthier, more just world. Our
priorities include:
• Promoting sustainability at City-sponsored programs ranging from the Organic Living
Workshop to Parktacular and National Night Out;
• Doing a workshop on Sustainability and the Natural Step Framework for the City Council
and staff and offering public presentations and workshops on sustainability, the Natural Step
Framework and specific environment and sustainability topics;
• Conduct a survey of citizen and community sustainability awareness and actions;
• Create sustainability education materials for the SLP Welcome Packet and Sustainable SLP
website;
• Implement the online MN Energy Challenge;
• Arrange for tours of waste, recycling and composting facilities; and
• Collaborate with other Work Groups to provide education and action opportunities with their
efforts.
The WATER-LAND-WILDLIFE WORK GROUP of the Environment and Sustainability
Commission, which was formed in November 2014, proposes the following work plan for 2015:
• Assess policies, programs, and practices and make recommendations that help protect,
enhance, and restore St. Louis Park's natural resources in the following areas: storm water
management, native landscaping (homes, businesses, parks, and open spaces), invasive
species, wildlife and wildlife habitat;
• Review and make recommendations on projects such as Bass Lake Preserve and
subwatershed, Minnehaha Creek subwatershed, undeveloped land within St. Louis Park
and City Parks; and
• Assist St. Louis Park Environmental and Sustainability Commission’s Green Steps work
group and the City of St. Louis Park with implementation of Green Steps best practices
related to water, land, and wildlife.
The ENERGY WORK GROUP will be completing the city-wide energy use analysis and
develop communication plan to promote energy use awareness and promote ways to reduce
energy use. The mission of the Energy Work Group is to promote energy education and
awareness, and to identify and promote programs and policies that will result in city-wide energy
efficiency, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the increased utilization and deployment
of clean energy resources. Our Work Group passionately believes that smart energy choices will
save money, reduce pollution, and inspire environmental stewardship. The Energy Work Group
will operate in a collaborative and all-inclusive manner.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
• Research, assess and recommend initiatives, partnerships, and programs to the St. Louis
Park Environment and Sustainability Commission and St. Louis Park City Council to
achieve defined green energy goals in our City.
• Eliminate or offset greenhouse gas emissions in all city sectors.
• Accelerate use of renewable clean energy technologies in all city sectors.
• Significantly increase the energy efficiency of commercial, residential, and public
buildings.
• Identify and utilize an objective evaluation tool for prioritization of energy action items.
• Enable community to engage in Energy Work Group action plans and maintain two-way
communication with all citizens.
• Assist in education around sustainability.
• Demonstrate effectiveness of Energy Work Group benchmarks by measuring success.
• Be an attractive city for sustainable businesses.
• Become a city that is recognized as a leader in sustainability.
The GREENSTEP CITIES WORK GROUP goals are to work with the new Sustainability
Coordinator in defining which of the current City Best Management Practices count toward the
credit to the program and what areas need to be revised.
• Meet with City Staff regarding priorities/needs for Green Step Cities Program
• Develop 2015 priority/need list for Green Step Cities program
• Develop schedule and work effort estimate and plan to achieve priorities and needs
• Submit schedule and work effort plan to city staff for approval
• Hold monthly meetings to discuss ongoing work effort.
• Recruit community members for work group
• Research grants and partnering with other cities with their Green Step Cities efforts
• Submit a summary of work efforts and priorities/needs met to city council by end of 2015
The ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING WORK GROUP will submit
the recently completed policy to Council for approval. Promote the new policy and look to
expand the policy coverage to other areas.
2015 Schedule
• 2015 Meetings: January 7, February 4, March 4, April 7, May 6, June 3, July 1, August 5,
September 2, October 7, November 4 and December 2.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Central Park West Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the
City Council regarding coordination efforts with City of Golden Valley regarding the Central
Park West development project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: As City Council is aware, DLC Residential LLC proposes to redevelop the land in
the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100 with up to 363 apartments, a 150-hotel room
hotel, 706,706 square feet of offices, and accompanying parking ramps. The development
includes six acres of land in Golden Valley. Two of the proposed buildings/structures will
straddle the municipal boundary, including the first phase apartment building and one of the
future office parking structures.
On April 6, 2015, City Council will consider the final plat, final PUD, and requests to vacate an
existing utility easement and excess road right-of-way. A parallel review process is occurring in
Golden Valley and the City Council will consider the final plat and final PUD on April 7, 2015.
In addition to the zoning actions, staff from both cities have been meeting to determine how to
handle issues that may arise from the development being in both cities, and in particular the
buildings that cross the municipal boundary. A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was proposed
initially as a means of assigning certain responsibilities between the two cities, such as building
inspections and plan review. Golden Valley has concluded that a JPA is not the best way to
proceed and staff is pursuing other approaches for coordination at this time.
The zoning applications have gone before both cities’ Planning Commissions and both
recommended approval of the final plat and final PUD.
NEXT STEPS: City staff will continue to work with Golden Valley resolve coordination issues
that are likely to arise.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Creation of JCPP Multicultural Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. This report is intended to update the City Council on the
creation of a Multicultural Advisory Committee as part of the JCPP program
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you
may have.
SUMMARY: As part of the Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP) model, each
participating city is asked to create a Multicultural Advisory Committee (MAC), with the goal of
enhancing communication and understanding between law enforcement and cultural
communities. The Hennepin County agreement with each JCPP participating city recommends
the creation of a MAC. The MAC will meet with police personnel on a monthly basis to discuss
topics that are important to their communities. The meetings are an opportunity for two-way
communication and to enhance mutual understanding between the police and the community.
Committee membership is open to anyone interested in applying. The goal is to recruit seven
members for the MAC. Afton Martens, the JCPP Coordinator, has been spreading the word
about the creation of the upcoming MAC. In speaking with liaisons from other cities, many of
them relied on word-of-mouth marketing for their MACs and thought this was most effective.
Afton plans to get the word out via word-of-mouth, the City website, NextDoor, and flyers
placed at City Hall, the Police Department, and area businesses. Any other ideas are welcome.
The St. Louis Park Police Department will conduct interviews of people who have been
identified as possible MAC members and who have shown interest in serving on the Committee.
Once the interview process is completed, a background check will be completed and a list of
recommended members will be shared with Chief Luse for final approval. In preparation for the
creation of the MAC, staff has discussed the role of the MAC with the Police Advisory
Commission, Human Rights Commission, Health in the Park staff, the Community Education
Advisory Council, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. All of these groups
have agreed that each group has their own separate and unique mission but there would be
opportunities to work together on engaging diverse communities within 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: None
Prepared by: Afton Martens, JCPP Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: February 2015 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 17% of the annual budget in February. General Fund expenditures are at approximately
14.5% of the adopted budget at the end of February. Revenues are harder to measure in this
same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes
and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.).
There are very few variances at this early point in the year. License and permit revenue is at
32% of budget due to the fact that a large portion of the 2015 business and liquor license
payments have already been collected, which is consistent with previous years.
Intergovernmental revenue is at 21.6% due to receiving the first payment of DOT Highway User
Tax in February. Administration expenditures are running a small temporary overage of about
1% because of membership dues and the Council workshop.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of February 28, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited Budget Unaudited Budget Feb YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ -$ 22,364,509$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,631 3,248,158 1,042,857 2,205,301 32.11% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 25,938 294,262 8.10% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,383,342 1,292,277 279,448 1,012,829 21.62% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,831,182 1,907,292 221,891 1,685,401 11.63% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,203,784 1,196,018 177,998 1,018,020 14.88% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 306,127 1,545,633 16.53% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 - 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 837 17,063 4.68% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,218,896$ 32,624,438$ 2,055,096$ 30,569,342$ 6.30%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 176,890$ 802,293$ 18.07% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,907 912,685 142,045 770,640 15.56% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 94,641 507,658 15.71% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 138,639 667,290 17.20% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 199,250 1,046,363 16.00% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 148,623 946,213 13.57% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 187,675 1,280,877 12.78% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 563,472 635,150 86,095 549,055 13.56% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 2,692 21,985 10.91% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 36,963 455,875 7.50%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,561,769$ 8,261,762$ 1,213,514$ 7,048,248$ 14.69% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,759,841$ 8,511,557$ 1,353,657$ 7,157,900$ 15.90% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 561,169 3,161,227 15.08% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,619 2,139,325 304,933 1,834,392 14.25%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,163,176$ 14,373,278$ 2,219,759$ 12,153,519$ 15.44% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 34,417$ 198,020$ 14.81% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 376,015 2,387,720 13.61% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,540 1,304,470 165,266 1,139,204 12.67% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 175,880 1,415,235 11.05% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,402,611 1,550,033 219,980 1,330,053 14.19% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 84,591 479,464 15.00% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,443 472,049 31,807 440,242 6.74% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,333 1,333,520 197,227 1,136,293 14.79%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,260,527$ 9,811,414$ 1,285,184$ 8,526,230$ 13.10% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 2,742$ -$ 740$ (740)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,066,577$ 177,984$ 740$ 177,244$ 0.42%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,052,049$ 32,624,438$ 4,719,197$ 27,905,241$ 14.47%Study Sesssion Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 8) Title: February 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide an
update on the Form-Based Code (FBC) process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: No policy consideration at this time.
SUMMARY: As a recap, the City is developing a FBC as a tool to encourage transit-oriented
development around the SWLRT stations and received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities
grant in July of 2013 for this purpose. Leslie Oberholtzer of CodaMetrics was hired to lead the City
in this project. A work group has been established to assist in creating and reviewing the FBC. This
group consists of developers, local property owners and business representatives, community
members, designers, an Environment and Sustainability Commissioner, and a Planning Commissioner.
As the name implies, form-based codes emphasize the regulation of the built form, or public realm of
an area. Form includes such things as building height, building mass, parking placement, locations
for open space, the way a building relates to the street with windows, doors and materials and
streetscape. A FBC also regulates uses but with less emphasis than traditional zoning. Form-based
codes are often implemented in transit station areas or downtown areas as they are well-suited for
creating walkable, mixed-use places.
So far, the City has held two community workshops, which included an image preference survey
(IPS) to gather public input on preferences for building forms and their relation to the street. An
online version of the IPS was also conducted, where the public could vote for images they liked and
provide comments on what they liked, or disliked about a certain image. A summary of the results is
attached. A draft of the FBC has been created based on input received from the community
workshops, in conjunction with previous planning efforts in the station areas. The work group has
been reviewing and meeting to discuss this first draft and has provided comments to Leslie for a
second draft. Staff anticipates having the second draft in April, another work group review, Planning
Commission study sessions, a Council study session, and public comment period through May and
June.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: $25,000 City Match.
($125,000 total budget with $100,000 from the Metropolitan Council + $25,000 City Match.)
VISION CONSIDERATION:
1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
2. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics
in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS: Discussion
Summary of IPS Results
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Staff would like to provide a bit more information on the direction being pursued
for the form-based code. As mentioned above, the City has received a first draft of the FBC. This
draft was created based on the following information:
1. Previous station area planning efforts including:
a. The Elmwood Study (2003)
b. The Beltline Design Guidelines (2012)
c. The Louisiana Station Area Plan (2013)
d. The LISC Corridor Development Initiative Workshop-Wooddale (2013)
e. The Southwest Investment Framework (2014)
2. Results from the two Community Workshops and the online Image Preference Survey
3. The existing form of the area within the FBC boundaries
4. Input from staff and the work group
The draft includes how the FBC is to be administered, the approval process, FBC district boundaries,
six primary frontage types (building forms), and requirements related to landscaping, architectural
materials, parking and sustainability.
The frontage types refer to a general building form, such as “shopfront”, “apartment/rowhouse” or
“workshop”, and there are variations to the requirements for each type based on the station area they
are located in. These variations may be due to such elements as the streets they are located on,
existing character of that particular station area, and the vision expressed for redevelopment.
This process of analysis, discussion and revision is to identify those public realm elements, such as
building standards and streetscaping that can be agreed upon up front and codified, so that the vision
we establish is permitted by right. One of the benefits of FBCs is that they can make “better”
development, or development desired by a community, easier to accomplish. The approval process
allows more administrative approvals, and administrative approvals with Planning Commission input,
than our process today. The idea is to do much of the “negotiation” we currently do regarding
development, (such as with building façade elements, setbacks, height, and landscaping), during the
Code development process, rather than on a project-by-project basis. This approach allows the City to
take a more holistic approach to guiding redevelopment, and focus on the public realm, in our station
areas. The intent of the FBC is to be proactive in guiding redevelopment of our station areas into
more walkable, mixed-use places over time.
NEXT STEPS: Staff expects the second draft of the Code by late April. There would then be
another work group meeting to review this draft and provide further comment. Staff would then hold
one to two Planning Commission study sessions, meetings with affected property owners, and a City
Council study session. A draft including revisions from these meetings would then be available for
public review. Staff is also working on having the FBC “tested” on a couple of redevelopment sites
by architects, designers and/or developers for additional feedback.
St. Louis Park Southwest LRT Station AreasImage Preference Survey Summary
The following pages show a summary of the results from Image Preference Surveys from two community
workshops convened to inform the writing of a form-based code to promote transit-oriented development
around St. Louis Park’s three Southwest LRT Station Areas. The first workshop, on May 6, 2014, focused on
the future Wooddale Station, Louisiana Station, and the Lake Street area adjacent to both of these areas.
Two weeks later, on May 20, 2014, another workshop was held for three areas within the future Beltline
Station area.
An Image Preference Survey (IPS) is a powerful tool used for eliciting group preferences on community char-
acter and appearance. It can help create a visual vocabulary to enhance discussion of image and definition
of place. In our IPS, participants were shown a series of PowerPoint slides, each containing photographs
related to geographic areas within the station areas. To offer a full range of options, images were drawn from
local, regional, and national examples. Participants scored each image from -5 to +5 (most negative to most
positive), and then images with the highest and lowest overall scores were discussed at smaller table gather-
ings.
Of the 30-40 images surveyed for each area, this summary shows only the 5-6 highest and lowest scoring
images. It also shows comments from participants recorded during the discussions following the survey.
These results will be used to help establish preferred building and street types to write the form-based code.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 3
Wooddale StationMixed Use Station Area
Image Preference Survey Summary:
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
• like relation of retail to street
• like the lower portion, not the roof
• like setback and landscaping
• like tower, but may be too large
• like benches, landscaping, awnings, lighting
• like variation of store fronts
• would like gathering space
• like circular element
• nice height
• like setback
• like open space
• like mix of materials, colors, texture
• like the courtyard, gathering space
• love trees and green
• good outside seating
• feels welcoming
• protected from street
• like greenery
• like trees; streetscape inviting
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 4
Wooddale Station Mixed Use Station Area
• too flat and tall
• don’t like parking placement
• don’t like blank walls/no windows
• building is too close to street
Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 5
Lake StreetMixed Use/Commercial Area
• cute and quaint
• close to sidewalk/road
• colorful; welcoming
• would be better at 2 stories
• good scale
• no on peak roof
• 2-3 story is cool
• outside shading is good
• good example of mixed use
• nice sidewalk
• good to have residential option
• like gathering area
• good green
• like green space in front of balconies
• like variety of external materials and roof elevation
• interest to structure
• landscaping
• texture
• traditional
• nice architectural elements
• good architecture
• good roof
• good greenery
• good parkway look
Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Image Preference Survey Summary:
Highest and Lowest Scores
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 6
Lake Street Mixed Use/Commercial Area
• don’t like, too dated
• nothing draws you
• where is front door?
• ugly windows
Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
• ugly!
• no green
• parking just ugly
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 7
Louisiana StationMixed Use Area
• like greenway/ walkway
• like mixed use
• like awnings
• like boulevard feel, walkway is comfortable
• like scale of sidewalks, green space, street
parking
• building scale is right; too flat though
• like the scale
• like fountain
• like pedestrian walkway
• nice for office
• like fountain
• like crosswalks
• like trees
• like building mass
Image Preference Survey Summary:
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 8
Louisiana Station Mixed Use Area
• too tall/big
• too “straight up” in form
• too stark
• too tall
• looks like a prison
• like idea of masking parking
• don’t like tower
• use of brick and design of first level are okay
• upper stories are too plain - need more interest
• for a parking lot, not bad; better than a surface lot
• needs windows
• too low and close to street
• congested parking
Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
• hideous building, no variation • scale is too small
• too suburban
• too small town looking
• set back too much
• don’t like lawn - needs more landscaping
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 9
Beltline StationBusiness Park Area
• like modern building
• like sidewalk
• good combination of materials
• building looks solid, but still has good windows
• like architecture, height, and scale
• unique
• like that there is some landscaping
• like modern elements
• like glazing on first level
• like on-street parking
• like wide sidewalk
• like landscape, sidewalks and plantings
• entry seems welcoming; overall seems inviting
• like variation in window sizes
• like textures, colors
• like awnings
• too tall or as big as should be allowed
• like design/architecture
• like glass, materials
• like scale and height; like how higher stories are
set back
• like landscaping
• “belongs in a business park”
• good scale and roof interest
• like colors, walking area, tall windows
• traditional architecture
• like defined entrance, close to street
Image Preference Survey Summary:
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 10
Beltline Station Business Park Area
• boring solid color
• no green space
• industrial space
• don’t like parking placement
• totally blank wall and industrial material are not
appropriate finishes
• total industrial blank wall, no windows
• NO!
• 1-story building is not enough
• feels isolated
• no shrubs
• gable roof seems out of place
• too wide spread
• can’t walk there
• good rhythm
• too few stories
• okay now but not for future development
• too low; 1-story doesn’t fit
• yucky field; too much grass, needs trees
• don’t like that there’s no sidewalk
• surface parking
Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 11
Beltline StationMixed Use Corridor
• people-oriented street level
• human scale, designed for people
• landscaping; public space with bench, nice seating
• northern area of Beltline could have more of this
with the retail and destination office
• like mix of materials, architecture relief with
awning
• retail first floor is good
• looks more Main Street than mixed use
• like articulation in building wall
• don’t like roof
• plaza okay
• fountain doesn’t feel right for beltline
• good placement to street
• good use of public/gathering space, but maybe
only at corners
• like pedestrian scale
• good green space
• like articulation in building wall
• don’t like roof
• like corner tower
Image Preference Survey Summary:
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 12
Beltline Station Mixed Use Corridor
• might as well be an alley
• boring; some glass, but it’s monotonous
• flat
• don’t like blank walls
• not attractive
• don’t see hawo this looks like mixed use at first
glance
• not multi-use
• no mixed use
• appropriate because it’s mixed use, but it’s not
pretty
• don’t like a drive-through here
• are you kidding?
• doesn’t feel mixed use, feels more like business
• not human scale
• like it because it is already there and it’s not a
nuisance
Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 13
• like space between sidewalk and street with green
area, street trees
• like setback, street entrances
• like columns, traditional brick, and contrasting
colors - maybe too traditional?
• facade may be too monolithic
• alcoves good, attractive porch - wrought iron
• tree-lined sidewalks
• rhythm vs same
• attractive
• like scale - this is minimum appropriate density
• like difference within facade
• like different corner element
• openness, windows
• green space
• pergola, relief on building
• variety of facade
• variable setbacks
• good articulation
• like variety of materials, mixed formats
• mid-level of appropriate density
• remove utility poles
• glass - variety
• open feeling
• like windows
• light and airy
• approachable
• good for lower-end of density in area
• good articulation
• good street presence
• like differentiation between units
• good balance of scale and green space
• too close to the street
• building type is appropriate
• differentiation between units is better
• more architectural interest is better
• first floor doesn’t look residential; should be raised
• variety in facade: materials, heights, in and out
• interesting look
• architectural face
• colors and texturesBeltline StationResidential Area
Image Preference Survey Summary:
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 14
Beltline Station Residential Area
• garages on front are unattractive
• don’t like garages
• sidewalks don’t look inviting
• don’t like metal material on building
• totally out of character for area
• industrial and foreboding, warehouse
• looks like the back of a building
• blank wall looks like a warehouse
• uninviting
• too cold
• no openings
• entrances are strange - don’t look inviting
• density is too low for area
• looks like a beach house
• stark
• stairwells unwelcome
• all the same
• too tall
• design is outdated
• don’t like garage right on street
• windows are too small
• like brick
• closed off
• boring, plain, not interesting
• boxy, hideous
Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest)
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 15
Station Area Development
Description: The Station Area Development project was an online forum hosted on
www.ideasinthepark.org. This was an online version of an Image Preference Survey (IPS) used
at two previous community workshops. The IPS was organized by station area, with smaller
specific locations selected in each station area. These locations, or image preference areas,
were identified in maps so that participants could locate the areas of interest. These locations
were drawn based on the character proposed in plans for each of the station areas. St. Louis
Park staff selected six images for each station area and asked citizens to vote for the images
they liked and provide comments on what they liked and disliked about an image. A separate
forum was used for each of the four areas.
Forum: Belt Line Station Mixed Use Corridor
Summary:
Top Voted
Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 1
Votes: 24
Comments: 6
Comments:
1. like the addition of open gathering space with nature elements where people working
can step outside and have lunch, walk, relax, make a call, fountain beautiful and relaxing
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 16
2. I also like this as there are green spaces to enjoy as we are "The Park”
Park area should be incorporated into all the stops as we are St. Louis "Park"
Also, love the private balconies with walls around, where you can sit outside and enjoy
your own private space without your neighbor next to you on their balcony. So many
modern apartments don't do this.
3. Love the mixed use plan, and this particular configuration! Beautiful use of natural
greenery as well as the water feature. Nice and open, very inviting. Very relaxing, which
is not typically how you feel when dealing with a light rail line.
4. Would be great to have something similar to this in the mixed use area. Need a nice
street presence that is friendly. A strong timeless design would be nice to see using
quality materials. The design in this pic is already aging poorly. Higher density concrete
structures would be very appealing like 36 Park, but need ground floor retail. Have some
on street parking but no surface lots in this mixed use area.
5. I like this design and Echo the other commenters thoughts. One cautionary issue: with
all the very small, aesthetically pleasing businesses that seem to be getting the most
support could creat a glut and lead to many vacant, unpleasant, spaces.
6. Mixed development near light rail should command a premium, no?
Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 3
Votes: 16
Comments: 3
Comments:
1. like the look of excelsior and grand, walkable, easy to park, lots of natural common
space as well as retail/living space
2. Love the private balconies and green space and convenient shops
3. This is a ok design but the retail needs a more welcoming front to it such as larger
windows. Too many different materials being used on the exterior but a dense design
with short setbacks is the hope for this area.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 17
Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 2
Votes: 4
Comments: 3
Comments:
1. I don't care for the neighbors balconies right next to mine without a wall in between. It's
nice to know your neighbors but I like my own private outdoor space so I can sit and
stare into space if I want without having to get into a conversation with your neighbor
every time you step outside.
2. I would like to see designs for mixed use that are different from what we see in other
areas of the Park. The Beltline space should have its own personality and character; it
shouldn't look like Excelsior and Grand or other areas with distinctive features.
3. The design of the apartments above was poorly done. Already in need of a facelift.
Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 5
Votes: 1
Comments: 2
Comments:
1. I wouldn't live in this. It looks like a prison with cement all around it with wrought iron
gates.
2. I agree; this is really unwelcoming.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 18
Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 4
Votes: 0
Comments: 1
Comments:
1. If there must be an office building this looks better than a big box as an office building.
This has more character with the arches. It looks friendlier than the CVS choice.
Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 6
Votes: 0
Comments: 2
Comments:
1. So sad. Hope this can be ruled out quickly.
2. Ack!
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 19
Forum: Belt Line Station Business Park Area
Summary
Top Voted
Image: Belt Line Business Park 1
Votes: 28
Comments: 3
Comments:
1. Very inviting for cyclists and pedestrians with the bike lane clearly marked, a nice
attractive pedestrian sidewalk with attractive trees. Appealing facade with lots of
windows and an open feeling to the area and the structure.
2. Need to use quality construction materials that are going to look great and hold up for a
long time. Density should very high on the list of priorities due to location and future
value of this area. Surface parking lots should be limited. Should be very walkable with
inviting street presence.
3. Looks great, for Excelsior, overkill for Hwy. 10, and possibly over kill for Beltline. What is
the market asking for, premium space, or value space??
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 20
Image: Belt Line Business Park 5
Votes: 23
Comments: 7
Comments:
1. needs wider sidewalks, trees, nice classic look tho
2. Definitely more park area, wider sidewalks and benches
3. This would be my second choice, but I'd also like to see more park area, wider
sidewalks, maybe a bike lane. Also, more vegetation/nature!
4. The setback on this is a little too small. Should be about 10 feet and not 5. The mixed
use of so many materials in this design isn't going to age well. 3 stories is on the low end
for density. We need to position this area to be attractive 25 years from now.
5. I don't see any designs that really do anything for me. I'd like something a little more
modern without easily looking dated.
6. Along Beltline, or Hwy 10? Looks ok on pedestrian street, along Hwy 10 doesn't fit.
7. And I don't know where this comment should go, but I'll leave here. I'm concerned
Skippy Field is within development boundary. Leave it alone as a ball field please.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 21
Image: Belt Line Business Park 2
Votes: 3
Comments: 4
Comments:
1. Suburban feel which we don't need in a high density area. The height of this is nice but
not a close up to the street presence.
2. This station lacks visual appeal as well as trees/shrubs for a welcoming atmosphere.
Plus, the trees/shrubs give back to our overall environment; go green.
3. Not sure I quite understand all the parameters needed to answer correctly, but if I
understand, what is preferred style for office park along Hwy 10, then this is the highest
density option. I don't see why curb appeal would be important, not much foot traffic
along the highway.
4. One thought would be how to lure tennants out of downtown Minneapolis here…
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 22
Image: Belt Line Business Park 3
Votes: 2
Comments: 2
Comments
1. Suburbia in a bad way. Not dense. Too large of setbacks. Not maximizing tax potential
for the space.
2. This is more in line with what currently exists.
Image: Belt Line Business Park 4
Votes: 2
Comments: 2
Comments
1. Again, suburbia feel wasting valuable space. The city should be concerned about
growing it's density to increase their tax revenues and further growth. This would be sad.
2. I personally don't like the style. Looks like a high end apartment complex entry.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 23
Image: Belt Line Business Park 6
Votes: 0
Comments: 4
Comments:
1. A manufacturing facility like this isn't something a city should hope for in a prime
development location. Sad.
2. Gag me.
3. Industrial spaces have failed in these same areas before... Somehow the synergy of light
rail needs to be studied, correlated to what works best here, maybe there is some sort of
light industry that makes sense?
4. Or college expansion??
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 24
Forum: Louisiana Station Mixed Use Area
Summary
Top Voted
Image: Lousiana 3
Votes: 22
Comments: 4
Comments:
1. Visually unattractive to me. Doesn't fit into context of the neighborhood. If similar
size/height of adjoining buildings, modern can look good.
2. I love this because it's distinctive and different. In line with my comment about Beltline,
it's nice to see something that distinguishes the Louisiana station area from other areas
in the Park.
3. How do trees grow out of pavement?
4. Visually interesting to me
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 25
Image: Louisiana 2
Votes: 20
Comments: 5
Comments:
1. love when developers don't feel need to have building go to very edge of lot. feels
gracious to have room for a wide sidewalk, grass AND trees
2. This configuration lends itself to businesses having outdoor seating or products on
display (I envision fruit stand outside of small grocer). I don't see it on busy multi-lane
roads like Excelsior because buildings would be spread far apart.
3. Love this! So light and open feeling. Again, inviting for more than just vehicle traffic. Nice
use of greenery and our lovely bright Minnesota sky. This would even be appealing in
winter.
4. Appears to be yet another strip mall.
5. I also like the greenery and space for outdoor seating
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 26
Image: Louisiana 1
Votes: 7
Comments: 3
Comments:
1. Tower element would be interesting on prominent building or for creating visual indicator
of nearest entrance to Methodist Hospital. Should be used very sparingly.
2. Even though this has a lot of pavement, this concept seems to be the one that could be
multi use. Pop in a concert or event here. Walk from train to hospital, sit and eat, shop,
…
3. This design is the only one in which the different sections of the building as well as the
landscape actually compliment each other.
Image: Louisiana 5
Votes: 2
Comments: 2
Comments:
1. Not conducive to pedestrian traffic: set too far back from the road, and no sidewalks
along road or to the building (apparently you need to walk up the driveway).
2. As much as I like green, The only thing to do on this lawn is mow it. Louisiana station
should be a bustling pedestrian thoroughfare.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 27
Image: Louisiana 6
Votes: 2
Comments: 2
Comments:
1. I do like street level retail space. Overall, I feel Excelsior and Grand have better solutions
for hiding parking: parking is hidden by adjoining buildings.
2. I think parking will be important as more businesses are added.
Image: Louisiana 4
Votes: 1
Comments: 3
Comments:
1. boring, sad, industrial, cold, looks ghetto
2. Visually unattractive to me. Doesn't fit into context of the neighborhood. If similar
size/height of adjoining buildings, modern can look good.
3. This looks like something out of the sixties trying to imitate in concrete what Wright was
doing in wood. Please no.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 28
Forum: Wooddale Station: Lake Street Mixed Use Commercial
Area
Summary
Top Voted
Image: Wooddale Lake Street 1
Votes: 34
Comments: 7
Comments:
1. Like the green feel,trees,welcoming
2. I like the green trees. Interesting and nice to have welcoming eating spaces outside.
Could this be a quaint gathering spot for ice cream on a Sunday afternoon? Coffee shop
in the morning? I like that it is welcoming and inspires creativity.
3. I like that it is pedestrian friendly.
4. The thing I like about this and my preferences for the other stations is the separation of
pedestrian/bike traffic from vehicles. Much safer, especially in winter. Also, the boulevard
makes the sidewalk seem like an inviting gathering place rather than just a means to get
from one place to another. The fact that someone parked a moped there demonstrates
the feeling this design invokes (a bit European, less 4 wheel vehicle oriented).
5. Timeless design that ages well and inviting. Quality materials and not a contest of how
many mixed materials can be pinned onto the exterior.
6. I agree- this design ties in well with the neighboring developments (use of red brick) and
is modern, quaint and looks inviting. It looks like somewhere people want to meet up for
a coffee or lunch! LOVE IT!!!
7. Overall I like the design but the flat front of the building seems a bit uninspired
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 29
Image: Wooddale Lake Street 3
Votes: 26
Comments: 8
Comments:
1. lots of greenery, beautiful windows, classic brick, nice details on roofline, patio railing,
white window trim and dark roof/first floor pop against the brick, just interesting and
beautiful to look at,
2. This design, with its old-fashioned appeal, is a nice complement to the adjacent historic
Elmwood neighborhood and the Milwaukee Road Depot at Jorvig's Park.
3. This does remind me of the Depot at Jorvig Park...nice neighborhood feel,green touches
with trees,flowers...interesting to look at....
4. I like the green growth, architectural details, varied architecture. Balconies are
interesting. Is that wrought iron? That is interesting and reminiscent of the areas early
industrial and railroad history.
5. I like that it is pedestrian friendly and encouraging.
6. Love the wrought iron and the greenery, but there aren't places to gather and talk. Too
much blacktop and sidewalk is too narrow.
7. I like the small scale
8. I like the historic feel of this design but the lower level storefront doesn't feel very inviting
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 30
Image: Wooddale Lake Street 2
Votes: 4
Comments: 4
Comments:
1. Doesn't seem to "fit" into our neighborhood for some reason...feel like this is south Mpls
or the likes. Too many roof lines,confusing..which door do I use....?
2. This is actually kind of cute, especially with the blush colored building in the back. It
would be my first choice if the sidewalks were wider and there was more vegetation,
particularly away from the building (like a median or just a vegetation isle)
3. hodgepodge. piece meal. don't like it.
4. Looks like existing buildings received new tenants: gift shop, insurance, deli, etc.
Image: Wooddale Lake Street 5
Votes: 0
Comments: 1
Comments:
1. To flat, to sterile, not enough greenery or welcoming. Don't like that the first thing you
notice is blacktop.
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 31
Image: Wooddale Lake Street 4
Votes: 0
Comments: 5
Comments:
1. zero design and personality, just a square box. boooo
2. Not pedestrian friendly since pedestrians need to cross parking lot to access the
building.
3. too flat, lacks architectural interest, parking lot is too dominant.
4. My least favorite for this station. All the prior comments hit the nail on the head. Very
unappealing. Zero pedestrian or bike appeal, difficult access
5. just another strip mall
Image: Wooddale Lake Street 6
Votes: 0
Comments: 3
Comments:
1. Not inviting, no clear entrance. I also dislike parking on side of building which means
pedestrians walk further between retail businesses
2. This looks like a storage building
3. Not inviting,boring,not welcoming and agree with ^...storage building
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 9)
Title: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code Page 32
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: March 23, 2015
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the
progress of the Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding
the improvements being discussed for the Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project?
SUMMARY: On June 18, 2012, the City Council received a report from Engineering, outlining
possible improvements to the Bass Lake Preserve. At that time the City Council directed staff to
pursue a functional restoration with the understanding that work would begin in 2014. On March
11, 2013 the City Council approved a 10 year Storm Water Capital Improvement Plan. The Bass
Lake Preserve Restoration Project is the first improvement being implemented as a part of this
plan.
The current plan for improvements can be broken down into four separate phases: Vegetation
Management and Restoration, Dredging, and Utility Improvements,. The overall focus of the
project includes repairing the damage from past practices, improving the aesthetics, improving
habitat and preventing future degradation of the resource.
The first phase of work on the site relates to Vegetation Management.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This first phase Upland Vegetation
Management project has an engineer’s estimate less than $100,000. The overall Bass Lake
Restoration Project has a budget of $5,826,000 and is funded by using the Stormwater Utility
Fund.
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: Discussion
Exhibit -Tree Management Program Area 1
Prepared by: Erick Francis, Water Resource Manager
Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The goal of the Bass Lake Preservation Project is to improve the water
quality, remove contamination and improve the overall aesthetics of this important City resource.
To accomplish this goal, the project has been divided into three categories of improvements;
infrastructure, excavation and vegetation. The infrastructure improvements involve repairing and
replacing pipe systems which discharge into the lake and control the discharge rate out.
Excavation involves removing sediment and soil from the lake and creating more open water
areas. The project also focuses on improving aesthetics and promoting wildlife habitat by
removing invasive species and restoring native vegetation.
The Engineering Department is leading the design process for the project. Key staff from the
Operations and Recreation Department are a part of the design team and are involved with
decision making.
The Engineering Department is currently collecting bids for the first phase of this project -
Upland Vegetation Management - which is located in the southwest corner of Bass Lake (see
attached figure). The vegetation management includes the removal of selected trees and invasive
vegetation around Bass Lake, followed by the reestablishment and long-term management of
native upland trees, shrubs, and grasses. This phase will have an emphasis on improving the
aesthetics of the Preserve and wildlife habitat for songbirds, hummingbirds, bees, reptiles, and
small furbearing mammals while maintaining the recreational experience for the public.
As part of this first Vegetation Management phase, approximately 260 trees will be removed out
of an overall number of 400 trees selected for removal. The selected trees to be removed include
trees that are dead or in poor health, hazard trees that are leaning or have hanging limbs, invasive
trees such as Buckthorn, disease prone trees such as Elm and Ash trees, and other selected trees
that don’t fit into the greater vision of the Preserve. City Forester, Jim Vaughn, has field verified
and approved the removal of the selected trees. Trees are currently marked in the field with a
white paint dot for trees to remain and an orange dot for trees to be removed.
Great River Greening, a consultant hired by the City, is developing a vegetation and habitat
restoration plan for the Preserve. This plan will outline the appropriate plant species and
locations that will promote the habitat for the desired wildlife and to improve on the overall
aesthetics of the Preserve.
Vegetation restoration of the first phase is scheduled to start on May 9th. As a part of the City’s
Arbor Day Events, staff is coordinating a volunteer tree planting event. This will be hosted by
Tree Trust and will include live music and educational opportunities. Upon completion of the
Arbor Day Event, the vegetation reestablishment work will begin and will include removal of
debris, amendment of the existing top soil, seeding of native grasses, wild flowers, and shrubs.
The tree removal and vegetation establishment phases will continue around the Preserve in
smaller manageable phases over the three to five years, as site conditions permit. A long-term
maintenance plan will also be developed to manage desirable habitat and plant species along
with controlling other undesirable and invasive species.
The City has been meeting monthly with the Friends of Bass Lake (FOBL). FOBL is a group of
residents that have organized a nonprofit organization to raise awareness and to protect the
Preserve. We have been working together to develop innovative ways to educate adjacent
property owners around the Preserve on how to manage invasive vegetation their property, which
will aid in the improvement of the Preserve.
nm
nm
nmnmnmnm
nm nm
nmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm
nmnm
nmnm
nmnm
nmnm
nm
nmnmnmnmnmnm
nm
nmnm
nmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nm
nm BELTLINEBLVD3 6 T H STNo tre e cle aring allowe d be lowwe tland d e line ation and OHWallowe d
Area 1:Anticipate d Tre e Cle aring and Ve ge tation Establish m e nt Are aApproxim ate ly 160 tre e s
Area 1 a:Anticipate d ad d itional cle aringare a, approxim atle y 100 tre e s
Area 1 b:Ad d itional tre e cle aring are ape nd ing fruth e r d iscussions with Park De pt. and Contractor
±100 0 10050 Fe e t
Bass Lake PreserveRestoration ProjectTreeManagementProgram Area 1
Legend
Mainte nance Are a 1
nm Tre e s to R e m ain on Site
We tland Bound ary
Ord inary High Wate r Le v e l (972.5)
Existing Trail
Ind e x
Inte rm e d iate
Prope rty Bound ary
Tree RemovalPlan
Tree Management NotesTre e Manage m e nt Are a 1Tre e Manage m e nt Includ e s:•Cle aring of se le cte d tre e s th at are d istre sse d , h azard , le aning, and d ise ase pronetre e s in ord e r to prov id e ad e quate sunligh t pe ne tration to allow for ground le v e lv e ge tation to be com e e stablish e d quickly•Grubbing of se le cte d tre e stum ps•Tre e s will be ground on site and th e m uch will be use d as se d im e nt controls alongBass Lake•Large r tre e s m ay be h aule d off site if too big to be ground•R e m ov al of v e ge tation, sh rubs, and brush , le ss th an 4 inch e s in d iam e te r, areconsid e re d incid e ntal to th e proje ct•Disturbe d are as will be com pe te d with a quick growing oats and stabilize d withcate gory 3 e rosion control blanke t or type 1 straw m ulch d e pe nd ing on th e slope
Estim ate d Tre e to R e m ain: 150 Tre e sEstim ate d Tre e R e m ov als: 450 Tre e sTre e s will be R e place s on av e rage of 0.25 to 1 Tre e to not ov e r crowd th e tre e s inth e futrue
List of Significant Trees:Any tre e , with th e e xce ption of all Populus (Aspe n, Cottonwood ), Salix (Willow),Boxe ld e r, Silv e r Maple and Black Locust is consid e re d to be significant und e r th eland scaping se ction of th e zoning ord inance if it is at le ast fiv e calipe r inch e s ford e cid uous tre e s and six calipe r inch e s for conife rs (calipe r inch e s are m e asure d sixinch e s from th e ground ).
List of Prohibited Trees:Any tre e th at is on th e following list is consid e re d to be proh ibite d by Cityspe cifications, Ginko (fe m ale only), Box e ld e r, Non-d ise ase re sistant e lm spe cie s,Nonh ybrid cottonwood spe cie s, Black Locust Sibe rian Elm , Mulbe rry, R ussian Oliv e ,Buckth orn.
Tre e s id e ntifie d on th is list are consid e re d significant tre e s by City guid e line s, furth e rtre e s e xist with in th e are a and will be includ e d with th e ov e rall re m ov als.
Tree and Landscaping PreservationSignificant care m ust be take n to prote ct e xisting tre e s and sh rubbe ry th at th e Engine e r fe e lsm ay be im pacte d by th e construction. Th e Contractor will be re quire d to m e e t with th e CityForre ste r, Jim Vaugh n, on-site to re v ie w proce d ure s for succe ssful prote ction of tre e sth rough out th e proje ct. Spe cial care m ust be take n wh e n in close proxim ity to any suchv e ge tation to pre v e nt unne ce ssary cutting, bre aking, or sh re d d ing of roots, wound ing orscraping of trunks, sm oth e ring of root syste m s by stockpiling of construction m ate rials ore xcav ate d m ate rials with in th e ir d rip line s, e xce ss foot or v e h icular traffic, or parking of v e h icle swith in th e ir d rip line s. Th e Contractor sh all install tre e prote ction fe ncing, as d ire cte d by th e
Study Session Meeting of March 23, 2015 (Item No. 10)
Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 3