HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/07/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 22, 2013
(Mayor Jacobs & Councilmember Spano Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 29 & August 12, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
3. 7:35 p.m. DLC Apartments Concept Plan
8: 05p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
4. Southwest LRT Update
5. June 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2013)
7. Knollwood Development Proposal Update
8. Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
9. Business Park Rezoning 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: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 29 & August 12, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
Joint Meeting with the St Louis Park School Board on July 29 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on August 12, 2013.
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
the Joint Meeting on July 29 and regularly scheduled Study Session on August 12, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning - July 29 & August 12, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 29 & August 12, 2013
Joint Meeting School Board & City Council, July 29, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. SWLRT/Freight Rail Project
2. School Referendum
Study Session, August 12, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2014 Budget – Accounting (90 minutes)
Discussion on the 2014 Budget, Tax Levies, Utility Rates and any changes Council would
like incorporated.
3. Mayor, City Council, and Economic Development Authority Compensation – Administrative
Services (10 minutes)
4. Meeting with Xcel Reps Regarding Power Outages/Discuss Franchise Agreement Renewal –
Administrative Services (45 minutes)
5. 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.
End of Meeting: 9:05 p.m.
Reports
6. Southwest LRT (Discuss??)
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff desires direction on the policy question
noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Based on the information provided in this report staff desires
direction on how Council might wish to proceed. Options include:
• Bring topic back to a future study session to determine next steps. This will allow the
Council time to digest the information provided.
• Request staff to provide cost estimates for a smaller project based on a reprioritized list of
program components.
• Continue to move forward with the project as proposed based on a specific
location/concept design and direct staff to undertake a more detailed public process on
the project, cost implications etc.
• Direct that no further activity take place on the proposed project.
• Combination of some of the above.
SUMMARY: After the City Council accepted the Task Force report, staff solicited proposals
and hired a consultant to assist with further assessment of the program content, the undertaking
of a detailed site(s) analysis, and the task of estimating expected capital and operating costs.
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) was selected as the consultant to assist in the
further analysis of a possible community center. At the May 13, 2013 Council meeting, staff
presented the City Council with program content and space requirements for those program
components. Victor Pechaty, Vice President of HGA, and Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations
and Recreation, will present an estimate of capital costs for the construction of the building,
operating cost estimates, revenue projections, and concept designs for the potential locations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: From the cost analysis provided by HGA,
the construction of a community center that includes all of the previously identified program
components would cost in the range of $45 to $50 million (not including addressing soils issues).
The assumed source of funding for a project such as this would be the issuance of General
Obligation bonds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Cost Estimates per Location
Site Design Options
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) was selected as the consultant
to assist in the further assessment of a community center. They have experience in designing and
building community centers around the metro area as well as other states.
Staff worked with HGA on further assessment of the program content, the undertaking of a
detailed site(s) analysis, and the task of estimating excepted capital and operating costs.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The building design and cost analysis were based on
recommendations from the Task Force and include all of the program components that were
desired by the community.
PROGRAM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS: The following program components were
recommended by the Task Force. The data that the Task Force used came from the two surveys
that were done in the community. During this phase of planning staff and the consultant went
through each component to ensure allocation of appropriate space and amenities associated with
each of the items.
Gymnasium
The gym is proposed to hold two full-size floors with a drop down curtain in the middle
separating them. There will be a set of bleachers that pull out from the wall on each side. At this
time we are considering a multi-purpose poured floor rather than a traditional wood floor. There
are two reasons for this. First, it is less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain.
Second, it can be used for multi-purpose events including all sports, tricycles and other
equipment used for little tyke events. It can also be used for special events where tables and
chairs are set up without worrying about scratching the wood floors. Staff envisions
programming the gyms as well as having them open for drop-in basketball. The current gyms in
the schools are overused by traveling sports so there is no time for kids and adults to drop-in and
shoot baskets. We would also like to look at an area in the back of one of the courts where we
could drop in a batting cage similar to what Chaska and other communities do in their
gymnasium.
Aquatics
The trend in pool construction is to have areas for lap swimming, deep water and leisure/fun
areas. To accommodate that, we are proposing a lap pool with six lanes that would have deep
water at one end. The deep water could be used for deep water events (scuba diving classes, etc.) as
well as hold a diving board and a climbing wall. The leisure pool would have youth play features
and slides with a zero depth entry area. An ADA accessible ramp is recommended for the lap
pool. That will allow all ages and abilities access to the pool as well as allow us to hold specialty
classes for people with MS or those recovering from surgeries. This is another reason we are
exploring a partnership with a physical therapy group. Swimming lessons could be held at either
or both pools depending on the age of kids. At this time, Community Education runs the
swimming lessons at the schools. We will explore a partnership with them. Because of the
cleaning issues associated with a hot tub or spa, staff is not recommending one for this facility.
Drop-in Child Care
This child care is only for parents and care givers who are using the facility. This is a facility that
can be used by people who are at the building for a period of 1 - 2 hours. We are not proposing
full-time day care.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
Community Room
The capacity for this room wasn’t fully defined in the Task Force process. From the feedback
received from the Council and residents, staff is proposing a room with a capacity of
approximately 250 people. The proposed room would be approximately 4,000 - 4,500 square feet
and hold 55 - 60 round tables. A caterer’s kitchen will likely need to be attached so that the room
can be used by a variety of user groups. This room can be reserved for a variety of functions and
events. The Banquet Room at the Rec Center holds up to 160 people. We receive requests for
various events that we are unable to accommodate because of the current size of the Banquet
Room. Staff recommends that this room be designed as a larger room to allow for other uses.
Commons/Gathering Place
This would be near the front entrance and serve as a gathering place for people in the community.
The furniture would be stationary. The coffee shop/café would be adjacent to this space.
Kid’s Play Area
The Task Force discussed this being adjacent to the drop-in day care. It was proposed to have a
climbing stationary feature along with a large motor play area with a variety of toys for kids to
play with.
Track
The goal is to make this as long as possible so there are fewer laps to the mile. The track is
shown above the gymnasium and fitness room.
Fitness
The two components of fitness are the exercise equipment and fitness studios where classes are
held. Since the trends in fitness classes change, we want to be able to adapt to those new classes.
We are proposing three rooms: large, medium and small to accommodate a variety of classes.
Actual sizes of the rooms are still being researched. Appropriate storage needs to be adjacent to
the rooms to hold equipment such as mats, balls, bikes, etc.
Party Rooms
One of the biggest revenue generators in other community centers is the ability to hold birthday
parties. Staff is proposing party rooms near the pool and possibly near the Kid’s Play area.
“Back of House” areas
While the Task Force did an excellent job of synthesizing the survey data and developing
program content, they didn’t spend time on the support areas that make the community center
work. It was understood that this phase of planning would do that. HGA has assessed the storage
needs as well as rooms to hold the mechanical systems, size of locker rooms, number of
bathroom stalls, and length/width of hallways.
Concept Facility Design and Site Analysis
The site design and analysis for each site show how all of the program components could fit on
the site. The cost for the designs is more than anticipated largely due to the need for ramped
parking because of the site constraints. All of the estimates provided are conservative and should
serve as the worst case scenario. At this time, all of the costs are included in the cost estimate
including some inflationary costs taking into consideration that this project would not be built
immediately. The only unknown cost that is NOT included in the cost estimate would relate to
soil conditions and the removal of hazardous material.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
HGA has created a concept design and site analysis on the following two sites (see attached):
1. The Rec Center / Melrose EDI area. There are two scenarios on this site. The “Gateway”
design has the new portion of the building located where the current Rec Center parking
lot is located. A parking ramp would be built on the green space south of the current Rec
Center. The community room would be located on the site across the street hear the
Melrose Center. A unique piece of this would include a skyway that links the two sites.
Although this provides a unique architectural feature, it also adds approximately $2.1
million for the construction of a sky way. The cost estimate for this site design is
$47,539,672.
The “Parkview” design contains all of the program components, including the community
room, on the Wolfe Park site. A parking deck is then constructed over the current parking
lot. The cost estimate for the “Parkview” design is $45,257,640.
Under both scenarios the basketball court and sand volleyball court would have to be
relocated to the site near the Melrose Center. The skate park would also have to be
relocated since that area would be turned into a parking lot.
2. Southwest quadrant/corner of Highway 100 and West 36th Street. HGA has used the
name “Urban Edge West” for purposes of this discussion. The site includes the purchase
of the building where the American Legion sits as well as the need to acquire some
property from the owner of the Burlington Coat Factory site to accommodate parking
(both are included in the $2,200,000 listed in the line item for assumed site acquisition
cost). This site is the most costly from a capital perspective for two reasons. The first is
the purchase of private property needed to construct the site. In addition, there is less
space available so program components would have to be stacked on top of each other.
This more urban design is more expensive to construct, at a cost estimate of $50,506,507.
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS: Staff has worked with the firm of Ballard & King to
assist with an Operating Analysis estimate. Jeff King took the program components outlined in
this report to design an operating budget and revenue projections. Jeff King has estimated
expense and revenue projections for many community centers throughout the United States. The
estimated annual expenses to operate a facility of this size are estimated to be $1,825,080. That
includes the anticipated increase in full time staff to run the facility as well as part time staff,
utilities, program expenses, supplies and other miscellaneous items needed to run a facility.
The corresponding revenue projections on an annual basis are estimated to be $1,197,142. The
revenue projections include memberships and daily admissions (anticipating several options) as
well as rental revenue obtained from the community room. The difference is ($627,938). The
anticipated recovery rate is 66%.
NEXT STEPS: Staff recommends that the City Council take some time to reflect on this
information. We believe that the cost estimates are as accurate as can be at this time. Staff can
schedule a meeting at an upcoming study session to discuss next steps. A possible next step
would be to subdivide the program and cost estimates into component pieces and facilitate a
process of prioritizing programs and the cost for each program. Council may consider providing
a target project budget that staff and the consultant needed to hit to make the project feasible.
Page 2 Copy of Saint Louis Park Community Center 7 15 13.xls
St. Louis Park Community Center
St. Louis Park, MN
Pre - Design Program
New Community Center Master Plan - Urban West
Primary Project Qty: 104,029 GSF Date:15-Jul-13
HGA Comm. # :
Construction Costs
%$/SF 104,029 GSF %$/SF 640 Stalls %$/SF 104,029 GSF
Site work 2%$4 $396,900 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $396,900
Demolition 0%$0 $45,000 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $45,000
Foundations 17%$43 $4,435,803 0%$0 $0 13%$43 $4,435,803
Structure 10%$25 $2,569,208 89%$10,000 $6,400,000 27%$86 $8,969,208
Enclosure 6%$15 $1,610,897 0%$0 $0 5%$15 $1,610,897
Roofing 2%$6 $627,696 0%$0 $0 2%$6 $627,696
Interiors 17%$43 $4,447,832 0%$0 $0 14%$43 $4,447,832
Building Equipment / Furnishings 0%$1 $93,626 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $93,626
Pool & Aquatic Systems 4%$11 $1,103,840 0%$0 $0 3%$11 $1,103,840
Conveying 0%$1 $108,000 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $108,000
Mechanical 20%$49 $5,125,197 0%$0 $0 16%$49 $5,125,197
Electrical 9%$21 $2,200,213 0%$0 $0 7%$21 $2,200,213
General Conditions 4%$11 $1,138,211 4%$500 $320,000 4%$14 $1,458,211
Special Provisions 7%$18 $1,821,137 6%$683 $436,800 7%$22 $2,257,937
Total 100%$247 $25,723,558 100%$11,183 $7,156,800 100%$316 $32,880,358
Design Contingency - 10% $2,572,356 $715,680 $3,288,036
Construction Contingency - 5% $1,414,796 $393,624 $1,808,420
Total Construction Cost $286 $29,710,710 $12,916 $8,266,104 $365 $37,976,814
Const. Escalation to Midpoint Constr. - June 2015 $17 $1,782,643 $775 $495,966 $22 $2,278,609
Total Construction Cost w/Escal.$303 $31,493,353 $13,691 $8,762,070 $387 $40,255,423
Project Soft Costs @ 20%$6,298,671 $1,752,414 $8,051,085
Assumed Site Acquisition Cost $2,200,000
Total Project Cost $363 $37,792,023 $16,429 $10,514,484 $486 $50,506,507
Clarifications/Qualifications
1. No hazardous material removal is included in the above costs.
Urban Edge West
Building TotalUrban Edge West
Parking Ramp
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis Page 5
Page 1 Copy of Saint Louis Park Community Center 7 15 13.xls
St. Louis Park Community Center
St. Louis Park, MN
Pre - Design Program
New Community Center Master Plan - Gateway
Primary Project Qty: 104,029 GSF Date:15-Jul-13
HGA Comm. # :
Construction Costs
%$/SF 104,029 GSF %$/LF 150 LNFT %$/Stall 760 Stalls %$/SF 104,029 GSF
Site work 3%$7 $706,500 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $706,500
Demolition 1%$2 $180,000 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 1%$2 $180,000
Foundations 6%$14 $1,404,392 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 4%$14 $1,404,392
Structure 7%$15 $1,593,238 87%$10,000 $1,500,000 87%$10,000 $7,600,000 33%$103 $10,693,238
Enclosure 5%$11 $1,103,445 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 3%$11 $1,103,445
Roofing 6%$14 $1,404,392 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 4%$14 $1,404,392
Interiors 20%$43 $4,447,832 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 14%$43 $4,447,832
Building Equipment / Furnishings 0%$1 $93,626 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $93,626
Pool and Aquatic Systems 5%$11 $1,103,840 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 3%$11 $1,103,840
Conveying 0%$1 $54,000 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $54,000
Mechanical 23%$49 $5,125,093 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 16%$49 $5,125,093
Electrical 10%$21 $2,200,213 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $0 7%$21 $2,200,213
General Conditions 4%$9 $970,828 5%$600 $90,000 5%$600 $456,000 5%$15 $1,516,828
Special Provisions 7%$15 $1,553,326 7%$848 $127,200 7%$848 $644,480 7%$22 $2,325,006
Total 100%$211 $21,940,723 100%$11,448 $1,717,200 100%$11,448 $8,700,480 100%$311 $32,358,403
Design Contingency - 10%$2,194,072 $171,720 $870,048 $3,235,840
Construction Contingency - 5% $1,206,740 $94,446 $478,526 $1,779,712
Total Construction Cost $244 $25,341,535 $13,222 $1,983,366 $13,222 $10,049,054 $359 $37,373,956
Const. Escalation to Midpoint Constr. - June 2015 $15 $1,520,492 $793 $119,002 $793 $602,943 $22 $2,242,437
Total Construction Cost w/Escal.$258 $26,862,027 $14,016 $2,102,368 $14,016 $10,651,998 $381 $39,616,393
Project Soft Costs @ 20%$5,372,405 $420,474 $2,130,400 $7,923,279
Total Project Cost $310 $32,234,433 $16,819 $2,522,842 $16,819 $12,782,397 $457 $47,539,672
Clarifications/Qualifications
1. No hazardous material removal is included in the above costs.
Gateway
Buildings
Gateway
Skyway TotalGateway
Parking Ramp
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis Page 6
Page 4 Saint Louis Park Community Center 9 9 13.xls
St. Louis Park Community Center
St. Louis Park, MN
Pre - Design Program
New Community Center Master Plan -Park View
Primary Project Qty: 104,029 GSF Date:15-Jul-13
HGA Comm. # :
Construction Costs
%$/SF 104,029 GSF %$/Stall 762 Stalls %$/SF 104,029 GSF
Site work 5%$10 $1,035,000 0%$0 $0 0%$0 $1,035,000
Demolition 1%$2 $247,365 0%$0 $0 1%$2 $247,365
Foundations 6%$14 $1,404,392 0%$0 $0 5%$14 $1,404,392
Structure 7%$15 $1,593,238 89%$10,000 $7,620,000 30%$89 $9,213,238
Enclosure 5%$10 $1,011,200 0%$0 $0 3%$10 $1,011,200
Roofing 6%$14 $1,404,392 0%$0 $0 5%$14 $1,404,392
Interiors 20%$43 $4,447,832 0%$0 $0 14%$43 $4,447,832
Building Equipment / Furnishings 0%$1 $93,626 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $93,626
Pool and Aquatic Systems 5%$11 $1,103,840 0%$0 $0 4%$11 $1,103,840
Conveying 0%$1 $54,000 0%$0 $0 0%$1 $54,000
Mechanical 23%$49 $5,125,301 0%$0 $0 17%$49 $5,125,301
Electrical 10%$21 $2,200,213 0%$0 $0 7%$21 $2,200,213
General Conditions 4%$9 $986,020 4%$500 $381,000 4%$13 $1,367,020
Special Provisions 7%$15 $1,577,632 6%$683 $520,065 7%$20 $2,097,697
Total 100%$214 $22,284,048 100%$11,183 $8,521,065 100%$296 $30,805,113
Design Contingency - 10% $2,228,405 $852,107 $3,080,511
Construction Contingency - 5% $1,225,623 $468,659 $1,694,281
Total Construction Cost $247 $25,738,076 $12,916 $9,841,830 $342 $35,579,906
Const. Escalation to Midpoint Constr. June 2015 $15 $1,544,285 $775 $590,510 $21 $2,134,794
Total Construction Cost w/Escal.$262 $27,282,360 $13,691 $10,432,340 $363 $37,714,700
Project Soft Costs @ 20%$5,456,472 $2,086,468 $7,542,940
Total Project Cost $315 $32,738,833 $16,429 $12,518,808 $435 $45,257,640
Clarifications/Qualifications
1. No hazardous material removal is included in the above costs.
Park View
Building
Park View
Parking Ramp Total
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site Analysis Page 7
SITE ANALYSISSouthwest/W. 36thStreet SiteStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site AnalysisPage 8
SITE DESIGNStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site AnalysisPage 9
SITE ANALYSISRec Center SiteStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site AnalysisPage 10
SITE DESIGNStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site AnalysisPage 11
SITE DESIGNStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Community Center Final Report - Cost Estimate and Site AnalysisPage 12
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: DLC Apartments Concept Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This Study Session discussion is an opportunity for City
Council to provide input on a concept plan to redevelop the former Chili’s restaurant site located
at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard in The West End, and to provide direction to city staff and the
developer regarding the proposed use and density on this site.
SUMMARY: Dolce Living, a Florida-based company, proposes to raze the former Chili’s
restaurant building and replace it with a multi-family residential development. The proposed
building would be six stories tall consisting of 163 market rate units and includes underground
structured parking. The unit mix includes 49 two-bedrooms (30%), 15 one-bedrooms + den
(9%), 65 one bedrooms (40%), and 34 studios (21%).
Dolce Living has a purchase agreement with Duke Realty for both the Chili’s and Olive Garden
properties. The Olive Garden still has a long-term lease and would remain under the proposal.
In response to city staff comments, the architect prepared two concept plans for future
development on the Olive Garden property in order to show how this entire block could develop
cohesively.
The proposed development would require a significant increase in density and would be similar
to the density of The Flats at West End. The Office zoning district generally allows 50 units per
acre, but City Council may allow increased density with a PUD. The proposed density is
approximately 102 units per acre. The Flats at West End is 112 units per acre.
The architect prepared a narrative explaining the design vision for the site and several drawings
that illustrate the site design and the building layout, massing, and character. Information about
the tenant mix is provided on the last page of the package.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Concept Design Plans and Descriptions
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Chili’s and Olive Garden properties are part of the overall West End
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Chili’s restaurant is closed. The Olive Garden restaurant has
a long-term lease. Duke Realty is selling both properties. Dolce Living has a purchase
agreement for both properties.
The West End PUD plans did not show any new development on the two restaurant sites, but
future redevelopment of these lots was expected. In 2010, the City approved The Flats at West
End, which introduced multiple-family residential to the development and replaced a proposed
hotel pad with 119 apartment units.
The City’s Contract for Private Redevelopment with Duke Realty allows for up to 300 units of
residential development in the West End.
CURRENT PROPOSAL: Dolce Living proposes to raze the former Chili’s restaurant building
and replace it with a multi-family residential development. The proposed building would be six
stories tall consisting of 163 market rate units and feature underground structured parking.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The above project requires a policy discussion with the City
Council as the plan would require a Major Amendment to The West End PUD. The proposed
development would be a change in the uses shown in the original PUD. It also would require a
significant increase to the density that is normally allowed in the Office zoning.
Land Use: The City has promoted housing as part of the land use mix in The West End. The
current development contracts allow up to 300 dwelling units. The Flats at West End
development has 119 units, so the DLC Apartments proposal (first phase) fits within the current
contract limits.
Density: Regarding the density, the Office zoning district generally allows 50 units per acre, but
City Council may allow increased density with a PUD. The proposed density is approximately
102 dwelling units per acre. The Flats at West End density is 112 dwelling units per acre.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA): The concept plan indicates a ground level amenity
terrace and raised garden beds that is next to the neighboring hotel’s outdoor recreation area. It
also shows a second level terrace and rooftop patio space.
Circulation:
Both the first phase and future phase(s) would be accessed by a new private street that connects
between 16th Street and Wayzata Boulevard. The “New Street” follows an existing drive aisle on
the border between the Chili’s and Olive Garden sites.
Other Issues: There will be other issues for the developer to address before the plan is submitted
for formal review, including meeting the minimum parking counts and negotiating certain
ingress/egress easements with neighboring properties.
FUTURE PHASE(S): In response to City staff comments, ESG Architects prepared two
concept site plans for a future phase of redevelopment on the Olive Garden property to show
how this block could develop cohesively with the overall West End PUD.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan
NEXT STEPS: Staff would like direction as to whether the proposed land use, density, and
general concept plan should be considered.
If the Council is willing to entertain the proposed land use, density and concept plan, the next
steps would include the following:
1. Further refinement of redevelopment concept
2. Apply for a Major Amendment to The West End PUD
3. Staff review
4. Neighborhood meeting(s)
5. Planning Commission
6. City Council
In addition, the environmental analysis of The West End project is now five years old and needs
to be updated. The original analysis included several development scenarios and reviewed the
impacts of the development on traffic, utilities, environment, etc. An update to the Alternative
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is already underway. The DLC Apartments proposal is
included in the scenarios being analyzed in the AUAR update. Duke Realty provided an escrow
for the costs and City staff anticipates receiving the preliminary report within a week. The final
report will need to be completed before the City would hold any public hearings on the matter.
The City Council will be asked to review and accept the results, and the report will need to be
published for public comments.
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
1
Design Vision
DLC West End Residential
Design Vision and Purpose
The Design Vision and Purpose for the DLC West End Residential is to extend the fabric and vitality of the Shops at West
End Mixed Use Neighborhood through high quality residential expansion within the area bounded by 16th Street, Utica
Avenue South and Wayzata Boulevard.
The DLC residential plan is based on a two phased approach. Phase 1 will replace the current vacated Chiles restaurant
site. Phase 2 will replace the current Olive Garden Site. Through working with the City staff, we have developed an ur-
ban design and neighborhood expansion concept that will feature a new active and vibrant street known for now as” New
Street” that will connect Wayzata Boulevard to 16th Street and serve as the pedestrian access for residents of the new
residential community into the Shops at West End. This New Street will be built on private land but will function as both a
landscaped public street with curb side parking for residents and will provide a focal point for the proposed DLC residen-
tial.
The Phase 1 program consists of 163 dwelling units and 209 parking stalls on approximately 1.7 acres.
DLC West End Long Range Master Plan/Phase 2 Concept
At the completion of Phase 2 , New Street will continue to serve as the focal point for the DLC residential community
providing curbside resident parking, landscaping and street front residential units. Creating a pedestrian friendly public
street realm that provides connections into the Shops at West End commercial core is key. Both sides of New Street will be
lined with active uses in the form of residential units and both sides will provide the main entry lobbies to both phases of
DLC Residential. As was stated above, New Street will serve as the focal point of the new DLC residential community and
will provide curbside parking and landscaped pedestrian access to the Shops at West End. The future Utica Boulevard will
be lined with active uses in the form of residential units with individual front porches, creating a vibrant edge to the DLC
Residential Community as well as the west side of the future Utica Boulevard. The plan calls for Phase 1 to be completed
by late summer of 2014 (construction start in late 2013). This schedule allows the construction schedule for the new Utica
Boulevard to be resolved and construction completed before work commences on the current Olive Garden site.
Architectural Design
The proposed Phase 1 Design will feature a continuous active streetscape along the New Street in the form of richly de-
tailed individual townhomes with individual front doors and porches on the street; this is a design strategy that ESG also
used at Excelsior and Grand. Set above of the street level townhomes will be 5 floors of residential with carefully designed
facades for a total of 6 levels. This is a height that matches the Flats at West End.
A key architectural focal point of Phase 1 will be the main building entry lobby with its exterior plaza and landscaping
strategically located on New Street.
Street Scape Public Realm Improvements and Green Spaces
A key neighborhood design feature of this proposal is the creation of beautiful, active and vibrant street scape along New
Street featuring street trees, lighting and other street amenities. Within the setback areas the design will feature green and
richly landscaped “front yards” with individual front sidewalks and front porches leading to individual front doors.
In addition to the landscaped New Street, the site design will feature a green pocket park buffer between the proposed
residential building and the north side of the Flats at West End. A large amenity terrace featuring green landscaped areas,
hard cape and a pool will be located between the proposed residential building and the existing hotel. Community gar-
dens are also being considered for use by the residents. The DORA requirement appears to be exceeded given these open
space amenities.
PUD Process
The DLC residential design is based on Best Practice Urban Design Principles. The City of St Louis Park has been a leader in
the application of innovative best practice urban design principles in the creation of sustainable and walk able mixed use
communities such as the Excelsior and Grand development (ESG was architect) and the Shops at West End Plan. In order
to achieve these exciting sustainable communities, the City has embraced the use of creative high density residential and
commercial buildings within an overall coherent public realm master plan. These creative high density master plans are
achieved through the application of the PUD process wherein density, building setbacks, building spacing, floor area ratios,
parking requirements, ect. are looked at in a creative way. The DLC design proposal will require the same approach.
DLC has inherited a few design hardships caused by the Flats at West End that can be solved through the PUD process.
These hardships can be resolved through a collaborative effort. The setbacks of the Flats at West End are minimal along
their easterly and northerly properly lines adjacent to DLC. Additionally, the Flats at West end requires a cross easement
from DLC to access its service door. The proposed DLC plan attempts to resolve these hardships in a creative way.
Site Access and Circulation Agreements
DLC will work with Duke and Excelsior group to get the agreements to allow for the shared New Street corridor adjacent to
the east end of Flats at West End. This agreement will be achievable given the fact that the proposed New Street corridor
shares an access easement evenly owned by DLC and Excelsior. DLC has inherited a hardship caused by the Flats at West
End service door location that depends on DLC allowing access over DLC owned property. The key point is that the New
Street corridor will benefit the Flats at West and provide a vibrant pedestrian oriented streetscape connecting the DLC West
End community to the Shops at West End.
Parking Solution
The parking solution will come very close to meeting the code required parking of one stall per bedroom in one level of
below grade parking and one level of architecturally enclosed street level parking. There will also be on grade parking for
residents in the form of curbside parking along New Street. A unique challenge of this site is its shallow water table that
limits the depth of below grade parking to one level.
Dwelling Unit Mix
The Dwelling unit mix proposed at DLC Residential is based on extensive market research of present and future trends.
The proposed 30% 2 bedroom unit count is above the percentage of 2 bedroom units found in current urban residential
developments. The mix of studios, alcoves, 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom plus den and 2 bedroom units provides the full range
of dwelling units to serve singles, empty nesters and young families. The size range of the units proposed allows for rela-
tive affordably across the residential user band width.
Green and Sustainable Features
The key sustainability strategy for the DLC West End project is the creation of a pedestrian and transit oriented community
that allows residents to live, work and play without the dependence on daily automobile usage for grocery shopping and
access to restaurants and shopping. The development team is committed to the sustainable design principles reflected
in the City’s comprehensive plan. Our sustainable design mission is to promote livable communities through the use of
energy efficient systems, green building practices, reduced dependency on automobiles, creative density, high quality
pedestrian and bicycle public realm and preservation of natural resources. This project will feature a series of green ele-
ments including green construction and demolition practices, material specifications, thermal high-efficiency windows and
exterior envelope systems, the pursuit of LEED equivalent performance and participation in the Xcel Energy Design Assis-
tance Program.
Specific Sustainable Design Features
• Energy efficient windows, roof, and walls
• Occupancy sensor controls in select building locations
• High efficiency heating and cooling
• High efficiency, Energy Star appliances in units
• LED and fluorescent lighting fixtures throughout
• Individually controlled and metered heating and cooling
• Low flow plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage
• Use of recycled content materials
• Use of regional materials
• Use of Low-Emitting Materials (VOC) including adhesives and sealants, paintings and coatings, and carpeting
• At least four electric vehicle charging stations in parking areas
• Convenient bicycle storage with 247 bicycle parking stalls in dedicated storage room
A key design feature of the proposal is a new storm water management system that will meet the important City of St.
Louis Park water quality requirements.
July 12, 2013
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 4
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
2
SITEPLAN - PHASE 1
July 12, 2013 Existing Homewood SuitesExisting Olive GardenNew StreetPOCKET PARK Existing Olive Garden ParkingExisting Flats at West EndProposed Multi-family163 UnitsSCALE: 1” = 60’ - 0”
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 5
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
3
SITEPLAN - PHASE 2 Options
July 12, 2013
Two Building Masses with Center Lobby/Amenity Space Single Building Mass with Pocket Park at Utica and 16th
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 6
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
4
July 12, 2013
MASSING STUDY - PHASE 1
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 7
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
5
July 12, 2013
MASSING STUDY - PHASE 1
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 8
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
6
July 12, 2013
STREETSCAPE - PHASE 1
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 9
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
7
July 12, 2013
Excelsior and Grand
Open Space - Precedent Comparison
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 10
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
8
Open Space - Precedent Comparison
July 12, 2013 Existing Homewood SuitesNew StreetPOCKET PARK
Existing Flats at West End
112’ - 0”
112’ - 0”120’ - 0”120’ - 0”44’ - 0”78’ - 0”140’ - 0”
TO TOWER
TO TOWERStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 11
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
9
July 12, 2013
Excelsior and Grand
Open Space - Precedent Comparison
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 12
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
10
SCALE: 1” = 60’ - 0”July 12, 2013 Existing Homewood SuitesExisting Olive GardenNew StreetPOCKET PARK Existing Olive Garden ParkingExisting Flats at West EndProposed Multi-family163 UnitsNew Street
Precedent
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: DLC Apartments Concept Plan Page 13
1,173 SF
2 BED
1,122 SF
2 BED
1,122 SF
2 BED
1,086 SF
2 BED
1,583 SF
LOBBY
MAU
30' - 0"348' - 0"15' - 7 23/32"15' - 0"120' - 0"40' - 0 5/16"
T61 STALLS @ LEVEL 120211
PARKING
PARKING
2,244 SF
AMENITY
LOADING
TRASH
412 SF
LEASING
Room Type Legend2 BEDAMENITYLEASINGLOBBYPARKINGTRASH 211 13
AMENITY TERRACE(LEVEL 1)ELEC
EXISTINGSERVICE DOOR(WEST END FLATS)RAISEDGARDENBEDSPLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - WAYZATA BLVDLEVEL 1July 12, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTHStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: DLC Apartments Concept PlanPage 14
638 SF
STUDIO
1,028 SF
1 BED + DEN
1,159 SF2 BED1,141 SF2 BED737 SF1 BED1,127 SF2 BED725 SF1 BED725 SF1 BED725 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
1,125 SF
2 BED
540 SF
STUDIO
700 SF
1 BED
1,020 SF
1 BED + DEN
1,178 SF
2 BED
1,130 SF
2 BED
739 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
1,061 SF
2 BED
1,114 SF
2 BED
531 SF
AMENITY
1,050 SF2 BED540 SFSTUDIO540 SFSTUDIO 507 SFSTUDIO737 SF1 BED
577 SF
STUDIO918 SF1 BED + DEN BOCCE BALL/GAMES COURTAMENITY TERRACEBELOW)Room Type Legend1 BED1 BED + DEN2 BEDAMENITYSTUDIO PLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - WAYZATA BLVDLEVEL 2July 12, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTHStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: DLC Apartments Concept PlanPage 15
Room Type Legend1 BED1 BED + DEN2 BEDSTUDIO
638 SF
STUDIO
1,028 SF
1 BED + DEN
1,159 SF2 BED1,141 SF2 BED737 SF1 BED1,127 SF2 BED725 SF1 BED725 SF1 BED725 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
1,125 SF
2 BED
540 SF
STUDIO
700 SF
1 BED
1,020 SF
1 BED + DEN
1,178 SF
2 BED
1,130 SF
2 BED
739 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
700 SF
1 BED
1,061 SF
2 BED
1,126 SF
2 BED
552 SF
STUDIO
1,050 SF2 BED540 SFSTUDIO540 SFSTUDIO 507 SFSTUDIO737 SF1 BED
577 SF
STUDIO918 SF1 BED + DEN PLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - WAYZATA BLVDTYPICAL LEVELJuly 12, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTHStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: DLC Apartments Concept PlanPage 16
35 29
14
130 STALLS @ LEVEL P1
12
MAU
WATER
32
8
AHU
18'-0"22'-0"18'-0"18'-0"22'-0"18'-0"
ELEC PLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - WAYZATA BLVDP1July 12, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTHStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: DLC Apartments Concept PlanPage 17
AMENITY TERRACE(GRADE)COURTYARD(LEVEL 2)ROOFTOP DECK(ROOF OF LVL 6)DORA:TOTAL SITE SF: 69707 SF12% DORA REQ'D BY CODE: 69707 SF X .12 = 8364 SFSt. Louis Park Zoning Code; Definitions Section 36-4:Designed Outdoor Recreational Area means designed outdoor spaceintended for passive or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or employees...Amenity Terrace/Pool Deck at Grade: (excluding private walk-out unit terraces)Walk-up Unit Front Yards (excluding private porches)Sidewalks/PathsLandscape around building footprint (excluding drive lanes, loading areas and area wells)GRADE LEVEL DORA: 24035 SF PROVIDED8364 SF DORA REQ'D BY CODEAmenity Terrace at Level 2: 3911 sfRooftop Deck at Level 6: 750 sfGRAND TOTAL DORA: 28696 SF PROVIDED8364 SF DORA REQ'D BY CODEPLANNORTHScale: As indicatedWest End - WAYZATA BLVDDORA EXHIBITJuly 12, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTHStudy Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: DLC Apartments Concept PlanPage 18
PARKING:61 STANDARD/COMPACT STALLSLEVEL 1 - COVERED:18 STANDARD STALLSLEVEL 1 - SURFACE:209 STANDARD STALLSTOTAL:130 STANDARD/COMPACT STALLSP1 - COVERED:BASE PARKING REQ'D BY CODE:1 STALL PER BED (NOT per UNIT) +/- 10% GUEST STALLS70% ONE BEDROOM UNIT, 30% TWO BEDROOM UNIT MIX49 TWO BEDROOM UNITS = 98 STALLS114 ONE BEDROOM UNITS = 114 STALLS163 UNITS212 STALLS NEEDED209 STANDARD STALLSScale: 1" = 40'-0"West End - WAYZATA BLVDMETRICSJuly 12, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdGross AreaLevelUse Total GSFLEVEL P1 PARKING41,760 SFLEVEL 1 PARKING/AMENITY/RES 37,161 SFLEVEL 2 RESIDENTIAL29,531 SFLEVEL 3 RESIDENTIAL29,531 SFLEVEL 4 RESIDENTIAL29,531 SFLEVEL 5 RESIDENTIAL29,531 SFLEVEL 6 RESIDENTIAL29,531 SF226,576 SFApt Rentable AreaLevelAreaLEVEL 14,503 SFLEVEL 225,679 SFLEVEL 326,243 SFLEVEL 426,243 SFLEVEL 526,243 SFLEVEL 626,243 SF135,156 SFAmenity/Lobby AreaLevelAreaLEVEL 14,239 SFLEVEL 2531 SF4,771 SFParking AreaLevel AreaLEVEL P1 41,760 SFLEVEL 1 21,614 SF63,374 SFParking (Covered, Surface + Tandem)Level Count DescriptionLEVEL P1 19 COMPACT STALL 8 0 x 18LEVEL P1 111 STANDARD STALL130LEVEL 1 4 ACCESSIBLE STALLLEVEL 1 4 COMPACT STALL 8 0 x 18LEVEL 1 53 STANDARD STALLLEVEL 1 18 SURFACE - PARALLEL STALL79209Unit Distribution SummaryUnit Type Units BRsLEVEL 12 BED 4 848LEVEL 2STUDIO 6 61 BED 13 131 BED + DEN 3 32 BED9 1831 40LEVEL 3STUDIO 7 71 BED13 131 BED + DEN 3 32 BED9 1832 41LEVEL 4STUDIO 7 71 BED13 131 BED + DEN 3 32 BED9 1832 41LEVEL 5STUDIO 7 71 BED13 131 BED + DEN 3 32 BED9 1832 41LEVEL 6STUDIO 7 71 BED13 131 BED + DEN 3 32 BED9 1832 41163 212Unit MixUnit Type Units %STUDIO 34 21%1 BED 65 40%1 BED + DEN 15 9%2 BED 49 30%163 100%Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: DLC Apartments Concept PlanPage 19
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Written Report: 4
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. The purpose of the report is to provide an
update to the Council on various items that are currently being discussed related to SW LRT.
SUMMARY:
Preliminary engineering and planning work on SW LRT continues, and information is updated in
the attached “Extending Tracks” newsletter. The primary subjects include: August as the time
for decisions on the “big three” issues (freight rail, operations and maintenance facility, and Eden
Prairie alignment), a schedule of meetings, and a timeline for recommendations/decisions.
The Southwest Project Office (SPO) continues to work with City Staff on a variety of issues, one
of which is the concept of “Joint Development.” This is the idea that some Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funds could go toward certain aspects of development, without harm to
the overall cost-effectiveness measure. Staff is working with SPO to identify sites and projects
in the city that may be eligible.
Hennepin County Community Works is drafting “Guiding Principles” for the corridor to guide
land use and economic efforts in station areas toward transit-supportive development. The
Steering Committee reviewed them on July 17th. A draft is attached for your review.
NEXT STEPS: Over the coming weeks and months additional work on Joint Development will
occur with the SPO and Hennepin County. Additional work in the areas of land use and
economic development are on-going as well which will help boost the overall FTA ratings in
these categories.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Extending Tracks Newsletter
Draft SW LRT Community Works Guiding Principles
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
DISCUSSION
SW LRT Project Update
From the attached “Extending Tracks” newsletter, the following is shown as a decision timeline:
Recommendations to be presented July 25
In late July, project staff will provide cost estimates for the concepts presented to date for
resolving the three big issues facing Southwest LRT and make recommendations.
The rollout will begin at a July 25 evening joint meeting of the Community Advisory Committee
and Business Advisory Committee at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park. This meeting is open
to the public to observe. For meeting time, address and directions, see the last page of this
newsletter.
Next Steps
Aug. 7: SPO staff will make the same presentation to the Southwest Corridor Management
Committee, an advisory body made up of mayors of corridor cities, Hennepin County
commissioners and others.
Aug. 14: The Southwest Corridor Management Committee will meet again to discuss their
recommendations to the Metropolitan Council.
Aug. 14: SPO Staff will also make the same presentation to the Met Council.
Aug. 26: The Met Council’s Transportation Committee will review public feedback and the
Southwest Project Office’s recommendation, and vote on a recommendation to the full Met
Council.
Aug. 28: The Metropolitan Council will vote on the recommendations after receiving feedback
from all committees, the public, earlier open houses and written comments.
Joint Development
Joint Development is a process that allows use of federal funds to assemble properties, construct
utilities and otherwise prepare sites for development. Similar to the funding of building the LRT
line, the FTA would provide up to 50% of the development costs for certain eligible items, with
the rest being provided by the local funding sources and private development.
Joint development has an advantage in that the funds expended do not count toward the cost
effectiveness index or CEI, and yet add positively to the project’s evaluation ratings by adding
points for economic development and land use.
The SPO’s goal is to include five sites for Joint Development in the SW LRT project. . In St.
Louis Park we have preliminarily discussed the two sites that are owned by Hennepin County –
one at Beltline and one at Wooddale; the Wooddale development site includes land owned by the
City. Staff will continue to pursue the ideas for Joint Development with Met Council Staff.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Community Works Guiding Principles
Attached is a draft of “Guiding Principles” that are being created to “guide land use and
economic development in and around station areas in a transit-supportive manner.” They include
the broad categories of:
1. Partner to Leverage Resources and Maximize Investment
2. Realize Diverse, Compact Transit-Oriented Development Surrounding Transit Facilities
3. Accelerated Economic Competitiveness and Job Growth
4. Provide a Full Range of Housing Choices
5. Create Great Quality Places Around Transit Facilities and Key Destinations
6. Strengthen Connections Between LRT and the Surrounding Areas
The Steering Committee of SW LRT Community Works is discussing the draft principles on
July 17th. Additional refinement will occur, and then they will be forwarded to each city for
consideration.
More information will come on all of these topics in the weeks and months to come.
Public meetings on freight
rail set for July 17 & 18
Project staff will present cost esti-
mates and information on a range
of engineering concepts at public
meetings July 17 in Minneapolis and
July 18 in St. Louis Park.
For meeting times, locations and
directions, see last page of this
newsletter.
Like the two June 13 public open
houses on the freight rail issue,
the July 17–18 public meetings will
begin with open houses. People can
view maps and artists’ renderings
and provide written feedback. They
can also talk with project staff about
the engineering concepts.
Six concepts will be presented for
keeping freight traffic in the Ke-
nilworth Corridor of Minneapolis
where light rail tracks would be built.
Two additional concepts will be pre-
sented for relocating freight traffic
to rebuilt freight tracks on elevated
berms in St. Louis Park. Only one
concept will be chosen. Following
the open houses, design and engi-
neering director Jim Alexander will
deliver the presentation. A facili-
tated question-and-answer period
will follow.
Extending TRACKS
Issue 3 | July 2013 www.swlrt.org
August is decision time for “big three” issues
August is decision time for three major
issues facing the Southwest LRT Proj-
ect. After 11 public meetings that drew
more than 800 attendees, Metropolitan
Council members are expected to vote
in late August on how to resolve the lo-
cation of freight rail in the design of the
project, adjustments to the alignment
in Eden Prairie and where to build the
operations and maintenance facility.
“The public is anxious to learn whether
their homes or businesses would be
impacted either by a full or partial
acquisition depending on proposed
adjustments to the existing planned
Southwest LRT route and freight rail
location. We owe it to them to make
a decision and to keep the project on
track to begin construction in 2015,”
said Mark Fuhrmann, program director
for light rail projects at Metro Transit.
In the fall, project staff will present
municipal consent plans for review by
Hennepin County and the five host
cities with the goal of completing the
municipal consent approval process by
the end of the year. Here is what will be
in the municipal consent plans:
• Station locations
• Location of LRT tracks above, below
or at ground level
• General dimension, elevation or
alignment of routes and crossings
• Location and length of the LRT line
Attendees at June station location open houses submitted comments by fill-
ing out comment cards and by attaching sticky notes to maps. More than 600
people attended two freight rail and six station location open houses in June,
submitting more than 400 comments that will help inform project staff and
engineers as they prepare recommendations, committees as they provide feed-
back and Metropolitan Council members as they make key decisions in August.
Comments also may be emailed to swlrt@metrotransit.org.
DECISIONS continued on page 2
Study Session Meeting of July ww, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4
2
Recommendations to be presented July 25
In late July, project staff will provide cost estimates for the
concepts presented to date for resolving the three big is-
sues facing Southwest LRT and make recommendations.
The rollout will begin at a July 25 evening joint meeting of
the Community Advisory Committee and Business Advisory
Committee at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park. This
meeting is open to the public to observe. For meeting time,
address and directions, see the last page of this newsletter.
Next Steps
Aug. 7: Staff will make the same presentation to the South-
west Corridor Management Committee, an advisory body
made up of mayors of corridor cities, Hennepin County
commissioners and others.
Aug. 14: The Southwest Corridor Management Committee
will meet again to discuss their recommendations to the
Metropolitan Council.
Aug. 14: Staff will also make the same presentation to the
Met Council.
Aug. 26: The Met Council’s Transportation Committee will
review public feedback and the Southwest Project Office’s
recommendation, and vote on a recommendation to the full
Met Council.
Aug. 28: The Metropolitan Council will vote on the recom-
mendations after receiving feedback from all committees,
the public, earlier open houses and written comments.
DECISIONS continued from page 1
The Southwest LRT Community Outreach
Coordinators are the first point of contact for
members of the public, community organiza-
tions and corridor businesses. To learn more
about outreach activities and get in touch with
the outreach coordinator for your area, visit the
Public Involvement page of the project website
at www.swlrt.org.
Eden Prairie
Daren Nyquist
Contact:
612-373-3894
Daren.Nyquist@metrotransit.org
Minnetonka, Hopkins & Edina
Dan Pfeiffer
Contact:
612-373-3897
Daniel.Pfeiffer@metrotransit.org
St. Louis Park & Minneapolis
Sophia Ginis
Contact:
612-373-3895
Sophia.Ginis@metrogransit.org
Electronic newsletters
To receive the latest Southwest LRT Project news, please sign up to receive
newsletters by email. Go to www.swlrt.org and enter your email in the white
ENewsletter Sign Up box at the bottom of the home page.
Study Session Meeting of July ww, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5
3
Corridor-wide support for LRT voiced at freight rail open houses
More than 300 people attended two
June 13 freight rail open houses, ex-
pressing corridor-wide support for light
rail transit. A couple of over-arching
themes emerged. The public urged
minimizing property acquisitions and
selecting the best investment versus
the least costly option.
Regarding the six co-location engi-
neering concepts presented for keep-
ing freight rail traffic in the Kenilworth
corridor of Minneapolis where LRT
tracks would be built, two themes
emerged:
• The two tunnel concepts – one
shallow tunnel or twin deep-bore
tunnels – are regarded as a win-win
for both Minneapolis and St. Louis
Park.
• Minimizing impacts to parkland and
trails is desired.
As for the two relocation engineering
concepts presented to reroute freight
traffic onto a rebuilt Canadian Pacific
Railway north-south track known as
the Minneapolis, Northfield & South-
ern line through St. Louis Park, three
themes emerged:
• Minimizing impacts to schools and
local businesses is desired.
• Increasing the elevation of freight
trains through St. Louis Park is
perceived as a safety issue.
• Freight structures are viewed as
dividing the community.
Project staff will provide cost estimates
for all eight engineering concepts at
the freight rail public meetings on July
17 and 18. See last page for meeting
time, location and address.
More Information
For more information about the six co-
location concepts and two relocation
concepts, see the May 28 news release
on the News page of the project web-
site at www.swlrt.org.
Or watch staff’s May 28 presentation to
the St. Louis Park City Council:
http://youtu.be/tt-3WsNOpcg.
Project presentation to the Business
Advisory Committee, June 6, available
on the Committees page of the project
website at www.swlrt.org.
During a freight rail open house on June 13, Southwest LRT design and engi-
neering director Jim Alexander (center) explains one of the eight engineering
concepts being evaluated for resolving the location of freight rail in the design
of the project.
The Southwest LRT website – www.swlrt.org – offers the
latest news and information about the project. Find out
about community events in your area, download maps and
presentation materials, read news releases and connect with
the project through our team of full-time outreach coordina-
tors.
Study Session Meeting of July ww, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
4
More than 210,000 jobs are located within one-half mile of the proposed
Southwest LRT stations, with 60,000 new jobs projected by 2030 – making
this the most jobs-rich corridor in the state.
Project engineers have narrowed the
list of operations and maintenance fa-
cility (OMF) locations to two sites: one
in Eden Prairie and one in Hopkins.
The two finalists are the city garage
site in Eden Prairie and the K-Tel East
site in Hopkins.
Both sites have their strengths and
weaknesses, as did all locations that
designers considered.
Cost estimates for both the Eden
Prairie and the Hopkins sites are being
prepared and will be presented at the
July 25 joint Business and Community
Advisory Committee meeting. See last
page of newsletter for time, location,
address and directions.
For information about the other sites
eliminated from consideration for an
operation and maintenance facility, see
slides 20–47 of the PowerPoint pre-
sentation to the June 27 Community
Advisory Committee, available on the
www.swlrt.org website.
Eden Prairie: City Garage Site
Strengths:
• Consistent with land-use guidelines
and zoning regulations
• Opportunity to include station and
park-and-ride facilities on a single
site
Weaknesses:
• Site dependent on Eden Prairie
alignment
• Wetland impacts
• Noise and vibration impact
concern to Eaton property
• End-of-line location poses
operational limitations
• Requires coordination with station
and park-and-ride facilities
Hopkins: K-Tel East Site
Strengths:
• Consistent with land-use guidelines
and zoning regulations
• Operator relief access
• Freight rail and proposed LRT
alignment buffer south and west
property borders
• Redevelopment potential of
remnant areas
Weaknesses:
• Wetland impacts
• Flood-prone conditions
• Geotechnical considerations in
southern portion of site (i.e., the
grade would need to be raised)
MAPüüü
ü
ü
üüüMitchell
Station Southwest
Station
Eden Prairie
Town Center Station
Golden Triangle Station
City West Station
Opus Station
Shady Oak Station
Downtown Hopkins Station
F012 miles
K-Tel East Site
City Garage Site
Site of maintenance shop narrowed to two locations
Eden Prairie, Hopkins sites’ strengths and weaknesses weighed
Study Session Meeting of July ww, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 7
5
About the project
The Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) project (Green Line Extension) will operate from downtown Minneapolis through
the southwestern suburban cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, passing in close proximity
to the city of Edina. The proposed alignment is primarily at-grade and includes 17 new stations and approximately
15.8 miles of double track.
The line will connect major activity centers in the region including downtown Minneapolis, the Opus/Golden Triangle
employment area in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park, the Eden Prairie Center Mall,
and the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Ridership in 2030 is projected at 29,660 weekday passengers. The project will
interline with Central Corridor LRT (Green Line) which will provide a one-seat ride to destinations such as the University
of Minnesota, state Capitol and downtown St. Paul. It will be part of an integrated system of transitways, including
connections to the METRO Blue Line, the Northstar Commuter Rail line, a variety of major bus routes along the align-
ment, and proposed future transitway and rail lines.
The Metropolitan Council will be the grantee of federal funds. The regional government agency is charged with build-
ing the line in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Southwest Corridor Management
Committee, which includes commissioners from Hennepin County and the mayors of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park,
Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie provides advice and oversight. Funding is provided by the Federal
Transit Administration, Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), state of Minnesota and Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority (HCRRA).
Southwest Project Office
Park Place West Building
6465 Wayzata Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
www.swlrt.org
612.373.3800
www.swlrt.org
Upcoming Events
July 17
Freight rail open house 4:30–7:00 p.m., Jones-Harrison
residence, 3700 Cedar Lake Avenue, Minneapolis.
July 18
Freight rail open house 4:30–7:00 p.m., St. Louis Park
High School, 6425 W 33rd St., St. Louis Park.
Council and committee meetings: The public is invited to
observe the following meetings, but there will be no op-
portunity for public testimony on issues related to South-
west LRT.
July 25
Community and Business Advisory Committees Joint
Meeting 6:00–9:00 p.m., Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry
St. W, St. Louis Park. Project staff will present project cost
estimates and recommendations.
August 7
Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee
8:30–11:30 a.m., St. Louis Park City Hall Council Chambers,
5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Project staff will present project cost
estimates and recommendations.
August 14
Corridor Management Committee 12:30–2:30 p.m., St.
Louis Park City Hall Council Chambers, 5005 Minnetonka
Blvd. The Committee will reconvene to discuss project
cost estimates and recommendations to the Metropolitan
Council.
August 26
Transportation Committee Meeting 4:00 p.m., Metro
Transit Heywood Offices, 560 6th Ave. N, Minneapolis.The
Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Committee will for-
ward cost estimates and recommendations to the Council.
August 28
Metropolitan Council Meeting 3:00 p.m., Council Cham-
bers, 390 Robert St. N, St. Paul. The Council will vote on
recommendations after considering feedback received to
date.
Visit us online at
for news updates, project information and events
Study Session Meeting of July ww, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 8
Southwest LRT Community Works Vision
Adopted by the Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee on April 21, 2011
The Southwest LRT corridor: connecting people to
jobs, housing, shopping, and fun.
The Southwest Community Works Initiative collaborates with
citizens, businesses, and government to
align land use and transit planning so that the
Southwest LRT Corridor is a premiere destination that is
· accessible · livable · vibrant
Economic competitiveness and job growth
Promoting opportunities for business and employment growth
Housing choices
Positioning the Southwest LRT communities as a place for all to live
Quality neighborhoods
Creating unique, vibrant, safe, beautiful, and walkable station areas
Critical connections
Improving affordable regional mobility for all users
The Southwest LRT Corridor now and in the future is a:
Jobs corridor:
Within 1/2 mile: 210,000 jobs now; 270,000 by 2030
1,000 construction jobs per year (2014-2016)
Housing corridor:
Within 1/2 mile: 31,000 housing units now; over 40,000 by
2030
Growth corridor:
Within 1/2 mile: 60,000 population now; 75,000 by 2030
Commuter corridor:
Nearly 30,000 daily trips by 2030
High reverse commute ridership; over 7,000 daily trips by
2030
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 9
Southwest LRT Community Works Adopted Vision Statement
The Southwest LRT Community Works Initiative collaborates with citizens, businesses and government
to align land use and transit planning so that the Southwest LRT Corridor is a premiere destination that
is accessible, livable and vibrant.
Guiding Principles
These Guiding Principles are a reflection of the cooperative efforts underway between the jurisdictions
in the Southwest LRT Corridor to guide land use and economic development in and around station areas
in a transit-supportive manner.
1. Partner to Leverage Resources and Maximize Investment
Maximize the return on investment from the Southwest LRT line by promoting public and private
partnerships to implement each community’s vision.
Potential Strategies:
• Utilize the existing Community Works structure to guide the implementation of the Southwest
Corridor Development Framework.
• Continue collaboration with the Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit to ensure the integration of
LRT engineering with land use /economic development to achieve a development-oriented
transit design.
• Actively engage the Southwest Business Investment Partnership in TOD planning and to
capitalize on the synergy between the public and private sector investments in the Southwest
Corridor.
2. Realize Diverse, Compact Transit Oriented Development Surrounding Transit Facilities
Continue to promote and encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the Southwest Corridor
consistent with TOD principles: - a mix of land uses (new and existing), higher and more compact
densities , high quality pedestrian and bicycle environment, an active defined center and limited and/or
managed parking and auto oriented uses.
Potential Strategies:
• Review, evaluate, and consider the Metropolitan Council Transit Oriented Development
Strategic Action Plan and determine what Southwest cities can do in their own plans, zoning
codes, policies and capital investments to further that agenda.
• Evaluate existing city zoning codes, steps that have been taken to achieve TOD, and develop
targeted recommendations for how to strengthen TOD implementation in each city.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 10
• Prioritize development opportunity sites and pursue site assembly as part of a coordinated
strategy.
• Explore the benefits of developing a coordinated environmental process (clearance and
permitting) within a ¼ or ½ mile radius of stations along the corridor
• Continue to work with Metro Transit, Hennepin County and others on Joint Development
opportunities, process, and implementation.
• Coordinate with engineering on the siting of LRT facilities and infrastructure so that they do not
impede future potential development opportunities.
3. Accelerate Economic Competitiveness and Job Growth
Promote opportunities for business and employment growth to accelerate economic competitiveness of
the SW Corridor.
Potential Strategies:
• Evaluate the establishment of a Corridor Wide Development Authority to increase economic
competitiveness of the corridor.
• Align and strategically target Hennepin County and other funding agencies’ TOD programs to
focus on the Southwest Corridor.
• Establish interdisciplinary teams to coordinate funding, infrastructure investments and
development activities for specific stations and projects.
• Work with Greater MSP and similar organizations to continue to support existing jobs and
educate commercial real estate brokers about SW LRT opportunities.
• Promote transit accessible job creation by providing pedestrian and bike connections from LRT
stops to key employers along the corridor; allowing increased and equitable access to job
opportunities without the use of a vehicle.
• Coordinate with the Southwest Project Office to develop a specific marketing and branding plan
to distribute to organizations to attract prospective businesses.
• Develop an alliance and promote partnerships with the Southwest Business Investment
Partnership.
• Continue to support small business and stimulate entrepreneurship particularly among new
American populations by partnering with organizations like Open to Business and the
Neighborhood Development Group.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 11
4. Provide a Full Range of Housing Choices
Position the Southwest LRT communities as a place for all to live and thrive.
Potential Strategies:
• Develop, adopt and implement a corridor wide housing strategy with joint policies, tools and
financing strategies to achieve a full range of housing choices (types/sizes/styles/values) to meet
different needs, stages of life and income levels within walking distance of LRT stations
• Integrate the corridor wide housing strategy within the Corridor Development Framework to
ensure market reality, financial feasibility and equitable access to employment, education and
amenities
• Encourage cities to adopt policies to preserve existing safe, well-maintained housing that is
affordable to existing residents and workers.
• Encourage cities to support new housing projects that increase housing density around the
station areas; increasing transit access, reducing dependence upon automobiles, and improving
the Affordable Housing + Transportation Index.
• Support policies to ensure that new housing developments will include units affordable to a full
range of incomes.
• Consider strategies to retain existing market rate affordable housing including investigating
putting in place plans and policies that identify and address the specific housing affordability
needs along the corridor, including income target levels, tenure, and unit types.
5. Create Great Quality Places Around Transit Facilities and Key Destinations
Create unique, vibrant, safe, beautiful, and walkable station areas.
Potential Strategies:
• Create walkable “destinations” that are vibrant and vital with a mix of uses. Ensure safety and
accessibility for all people to/from LRT stations and within station areas.
• Encourage new development to provide “eyes of the LRT and streets” and natural surveillance
of public spaces and parks. Follow Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
guidelines – open sight lines, adequate lighting and clear entries/exits. Create a balance
between the natural and built environments.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 12
• Encourage open spaces to be well-designed, accessible by foot and bike and accommodate
diverse users.
• Promote new methods and creative ideas to enhance main pedestrian routes, key public spaces
and private development with landscaping.
• Develop a coordinated public art program for station platforms and station areas (defined as
approximately ¼ mile around stations)
6. Strengthen Connections Between LRT and the Surrounding Areas - Critical Connections
Improve affordable regional mobility for all users.
Potential Strategies:
• Tailor public infrastructure investments to the station typologies and timing of development.
• Align the capital improvement programs (CIPs) of the partner agencies and with planned private
sector infrastructure investments.
• Complete the “last mile” of critical bicycle and pedestrian connections.
• Where appropriate, transform existing roadways that serve stations into complete streets.
• Develop a station hierarchy for users related to station typologies that will guide modal
investment priorities.
• Provide convenient, user-friendly, bicycle parking (including secure short- and long-term) and
related facilities.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 13
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: June 2013 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides summary information for the General
Fund and the Park & Recreation Fund of revenues and departmental expenditures and a
comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 50% of the annual budget in June. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling
45.3% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 46.2%.
Revenues tend to be 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, PERA Aid, etc.).
Through mid-year, nearly all departments continue to be at or below budget for expenditures. A
few brief comments are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through June, 69% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General
Fund. As in prior years, this is because approximately 97% of the 2013 liquor and
business license payments have already been received. Building permit revenues are at
57.8% of budget or $982,000 through June.
Expenditures:
• Community Outreach is temporarily exceeding budget at 54% because the full 2013
payment for Mediation Services was made in April. This expenditure is a substantial
portion of the Community Outreach budget. The variance is consistent with prior years.
Park & Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Vehicle Maintenance Division is running a small overage through June at 51.2%.
Due to continued plowing well into the spring and summer storm work, some
corresponding expenditures, such as overtime, fuel, and parts, are slightly over budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of June 30, 2013 20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetActual Budget Jun YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 16,038,098$ 16,314,802$ -$ 16,314,802$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,345,910 2,797,588 2,368,799 3,241,372 2,481,603 1,713,091 768,512 69.03% Fines & Forfeits328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 147,528 187,622 44.02% Intergovernmental1,136,187 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,275,279 1,203,289 298,433 904,856 24.80% Charges for Services1,152,643 1,077,137 1,270,354 1,095,909 1,401,797 538,521 863,276 38.42% Miscellaneous Revenue100,150 129,142 111,650 103,029 114,200 58,912 55,288 51.59% Transfers In2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 894,757 921,806 49.26% Investment Earnings200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00% Other Income4,750 22,686 3,450 10,871 4,700 4,843 (143) 103.04%Total General Fund Revenues23,283,788$ 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 24,308,465$ 23,822,104$ 3,656,085$ 20,166,019$ 15.35%Park & Recreation Revenues: General Property Taxes4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 4,171,506$ 4,342,922$ -$ 4,342,922$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits6,600 110 6,600 440 - 249 (249) 0.00% Intergovernmental77,652 208,536 68,902 89,744 96,902 33,169 63,733 34.23% Charges for Services1,095,250 1,082,163 1,070,750 1,073,722 1,073,400 492,980 580,420 45.93% Miscellaneous Revenue937,400 1,035,310 967,900 989,204 978,181 360,388 617,793 36.84% Other Income15,000 78,902 42,150 265,402 31,950 2,372 29,578 7.42%Total Park & Recreation Revenues6,132,463$ 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 6,590,018$ 6,523,355$ 889,158$ 5,634,197$ 13.63%Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: Summary of Revenues & ExpendituresPage 2
20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance BudgetBudgetActual BudgetActual Budget Jun YTD Remaining to Actual %General Government: Administration889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 419,124$ 457,975$ 47.79% Accounting612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 657,592 331,518 326,074 50.41% Assessing500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 267,884 275,971 49.26% Human Resources652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 338,870 340,118 49.91% Community Development1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 533,867 560,650 48.78% Facilities Maintenance1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 453,563 621,357 42.20% Information Resources1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 760,745 1,010,132 42.96% Communications & Marketing294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 78,967 122,355 39.22% Community Outreach88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,421 3,764 54.01%Total General Government6,641,621$ 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 6,418,686$ 6,907,355$ 3,188,959$ 3,718,396$ 46.17%Public Safety: Police7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 3,553,426$ 3,890,211$ 47.74% Fire Protection3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 1,527,710 1,802,553 45.87% Inspectional Services1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 937,945 990,501 48.64%Total Public Safety12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 6,019,081$ 6,683,265$ 47.39%Public Works: Public Works Administration829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 183,187$ 209,867$ 46.61% Public Works Engineering846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 940,479 419,195 521,284 44.57% Public Works Operations2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 1,222,471 1,476,399 45.30%Total Public Works4,226,015$ 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,839,739$ 4,032,403$ 1,824,853$ 2,207,550$ 45.25%Non-Departmental: General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00% Transfers Out900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ -$ 180,000$ 0.00%Total General Fund Expenditures23,283,788$ 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 23,769,772$ 23,822,104$ 11,032,893$ 12,789,211$ 46.31%Park & Recreation:Organized Recreation1,239,230$ 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,352,273$ 1,317,526$ 555,350$ 762,176$ 42.15%Recreation Center1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,463,224 714,472 748,752 48.83%Park Maintenance1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,483,576 700,630 782,946 47.23%Westwood502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 533,565 241,266 292,299 45.22%Environment371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 137,305 293,571 31.87%Vehicle Maintenance1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,294,588 662,194 632,394 51.15%Total Park & Recreation Expenditures6,132,463$ 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 6,527,777$ 6,523,355$ 3,011,217$ 3,512,138$ 46.16%Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & RecreationAs of June 30, 2013 Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 5) Title: Summary of Revenues & ExpendituresPage 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2013)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2013)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value increased by approximately $7.6
million this quarter from $56.2 million at 3/31/2013 to $63.8 million at 6/30/2013. The increase
was in available cash due to the receipt of the 70% advance property tax settlement on June 20th
from the County.
Because of the larger amount of cash ($25.6 mil) currently held in lower yielding money market
accounts, the overall yield of the portfolio dropped to .85% in the second quarter from 1.12% in
the first quarter. Cities generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.36% at
6/28/2013) or some similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio. Long term
interest rates remain very low, and money market rates have continued to decline. The City has
been able to maintain a fairly consistent yield over the past 12 to 18 months by balancing cash
flow needs with short and long term investment options.
Approximately 40% of the portfolio is currently invested in money markets. While some of this
cash will be used to purchase longer term investments in the coming quarter, it is necessary to
keep cash available between property tax settlements for on-going cash flow needs for capital
project payments, payroll, and operating expenses. Larger capital project contract payments will
be forthcoming in the near future for Louisiana Ave. and Hwy 7 and the City Hall renovation
project. Cash will also be required to fund the August 1st debt service payments and Pay As
You Go note payments, as well as a potential upcoming land acquisition by the EDA. The next
property tax settlement won’t be received until December 3, 2013.
Money market rates are very low and range from just .02% and .04% in the 4M Fund and UBS
Money Market respectively, to .21% at Citizens Independent Bank. This does unfortunately
keep the total portfolio yield down, but there are very few options for investing cash short term.
Another 7% of the portfolio is invested in fixed rate certificates of deposit at rates ranging from
.5% for two years to 1.75% for five years. With rates on bonds continuing to be very low,
purchasing these fixed rate CD’s has helped to keep the portfolio yield stable. There are 18 CD’s
in the portfolio, each with a face value of $200,000 to $240,000, which guarantees that each CD
is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000.
The remaining 53% or approximately $34 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term
securities, including municipal debt ($20 million) and agency bonds ($14 million). Municipal
debt instruments are bonds issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance
special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home
Loan Bank or Fannie Mae, and are typically callable. These callable agency bonds will usually
have higher interest rates to the final maturity date in five years, but the issuers have the right to
call the bonds at specific intervals prior to maturity if interest rates decline. Two agency bonds
were called prior to maturity during the second quarter. There were also five municipal debt
maturities.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2013)
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at June 30, 2013:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
3/31/13 6/30/13
<1 Year 40% 58%
1-2 Years 11% 7%
2-3 Years 16% 9%
3-4 Years 9% 13%
>4 Years 24% 14%
3/31/13 6/30/13
Money Markets $13,681,146 $25,757,332
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $4,316,614 $4,298,052
Municipal Debt $23,115,051 $19,717,951
Agency Bonds $15,084,419 $13,992,326
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
June 30, 2013
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
6/30/2013
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.21%8,038,364 8,038,364 16,881
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%3,838,146 3,838,146 768
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 36217C4W3 6.24% 18,705 20,763 1,296
UBS Muni Debt - Dist of Columbia 25476FLE6 06/01/2015 1.33% 1,000,000 1,048,340 13,310
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063A7E8 10/01/2013 0.78% 2,000,000 2,015,800 15,680
UBS Muni Debt - Gilroy, CA 376087CZ3 04/01/2015 1.81% 1,125,000 1,168,841 20,363
UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,034,730 20,000
UBS Muni Debt - Atl City, NJ 048339RR8 12/15/2015 2.70% 470,000 474,550 12,690
UBS FNMA Step Up 3136FTXU8 12/29/2016 1.25% 1,000,000 1,002,170 12,500
UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 244,390 3,840
UBS Muni Debt - Amer Munic Pwr Ohio 02765UER1 02/15/2015 1.54% 1,000,000 1,043,670 15,400
UBS Freddie Mac 3134G3PE4 02/24/2016 0.85% 1,000,000 1,001,960 8,500
UBS CD - Bank of China NY 06425HN85 05/02/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,650 1,440
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 242,645 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 241,913 4,200
UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BXU5 05/07/2014 0.60% 240,000 240,648 1,440
UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 037830KP0 05/09/2014 0.50% 240,000 240,646 1,200
UBS FHLMC 3134G3WV8 06/06/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 993,320 10,140
UBS FHLMC 3134G3MZ0 02/24/2017 0.89% 1,000,000 997,740 8,930
UBS FNMA step up 3136G0ZV6 08/28/2017 1.17% 1,000,000 994,050 11,740
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 238,841 4,080
UBS FHLMC 3134G3NN6 02/27/2017 0.72% 1,000,000 995,430 7,220
UBS CD - First Bank PR Sant 33764JNF8 10/27/2014 0.80%240,000 240,610 1,920
UBS CD - Doral Bank PR 25811L2L2 12/08/2014 0.85% 240,000 240,720 2,040
UBS CD - Amer Exp Cent UT 02587DLS5 01/26/2015 0.85% 240,000 240,463 2,040
UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05% 240,000 240,708 2,520
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 241,205 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 239,971 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 196,818 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 239,676 2,640
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 981,700 10,110
UBS FNMA 3136G1AJ8 01/30/2018 1.06% 1,000,000 979,710 10,630
UBS FHLB 313381JW6 06/27/2018 0.92% 1,000,000 1,079,733 9,200
UBS Money Market 0.04% 13,880,822 13,880,822 5,552
33,262,470
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Waukegan, IL 942860MT1 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,500,000 1,522,230 44,250
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Outagamie Cnty WI 689900TH1 04/01/2014 2.53% 810,000 819,987 20,493
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Van Buren, MI Sch 920729GR5 05/01/2014 3.52% 705,000 719,001 24,816
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Union Co NJ 906347SC4 06/01/2014 4.04% 110,000 110,944 4,444
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Illinois State 4521518U0 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,225,000 1,243,081 39,813
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Milwuakee Co, WI 602245WW8 10/01/2013 1.50% 1,000,000 1,002,300 15,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NN7 01/15/2014 1.35% 275,000 276,936 3,713
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Smithfield, RI 832322NP2 01/15/2015 1.90% 275,000 278,575 5,225
Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 282,359 6,600
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Racine, WI 750046GB4 04/01/2014 0.70% 1,010,000 1,041,653 7,070
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 562,305 6,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,067,399 8,925
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,006,390 11,500
9,933,160
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - State of WA 93974CLV0 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,000,000 1,028,680 13,300
Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 243,197 4,080
Wells Fargo CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38143AGR0 01/12/2015 1.50% 240,000 242,510 3,600
Wells Fargo CD - Ally Bank UT 0200SQYM9 01/26/2015 1.15% 240,000 242,441 2,760
Wells Fargo FHLMC 3134G3HP8 01/27/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,003,710 10,000
Wells Fargo Freddie Mac 3134G3MP2 08/24/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 1,002,610 10,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 988,480 10,500
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 981,260 10,000
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 982,730 9,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02% 1,000,000 978,340 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 1,000,000 978,800 10,000
8,672,758
GRAND TOTAL 63,765,661 541,557
Portfolio Yield 0.85%
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 6)
Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2013)Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Knollwood Development Proposal Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this discussion is to
provide an update on the Knollwood Mall development proposal.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or
concerns that you might have.
SUMMARY: Rouse Companies, the owners of the Knollwood Shopping Center, submitted an
application to make significant changes to both the Knollwood building and its parking lot. The
plan requires a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD). The pertinent pages
from the application are attached for your information.
Knollwood building: Rouse is proposing to remove the interior mall located between Kohls and
TJ Max. The interior mall will be replaced with approximately five “Junior Box” retailers about
the size of stores like Old Navy.
Small “out” building: A small three tenant building is proposed to be built in the parking lot at
the corner of Hwy 7 and Aquila Ave. This building will contain Panera Bread and two other
retailers. The Panera will include a drive-thru and an outdoor seating area.
Parking lot: The shopping center parking lot, located between Kohls, Hwy 7 and TJ Max will
be replaced and redesigned to improve traffic and pedestrian flow. The redesign will include
significant landscaping integrated into the pedestrian routes through the parking lot.
Stormwater: Rouse is working with the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) to bring the entire site into compliance with stormwater rate and quality rules. The
MCWD presented a plan to expand Knollwood Mall’s stormwater improvement into a regional
pond that will treat approximately 100 acres in addition to the 35-acre Knollwood Mall site. The
plan design and terms of the agreements for the regional pond are currently being discussed.
Next Steps: The application is tentatively scheduled for a neighborhood meeting on July 30th to be held
at Knollwood Mall. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 21st.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The stormwater installation will be funded
by Rouse and the MCWD. It is possible that the City may be asked to maintain the lift stations if
a regional stormwater solution is agreed upon.
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
Development Proposal
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update
DISCUSSION
Rouse Companies, the owners of the Knollwood Shopping Center, are proposing to make
significant changes to both the Knollwood building and its parking lot. These changes will
trigger the need to address the stormwater management issues that exist today on the site.
Today, Knollwood Center is not in compliance with current stormwater management rules.
Bringing Knollwood into compliance with the stormwater rules was a condition of approval of
the previous amendment to the Knollwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit in 2004.
The Resolution of approval, Resolution 04-54, stated:
“On-site storm water management must be brought into compliance with City standards
when any future projects affect the parking lot or with any future building expansions.”
Discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) have identified a means of
expanding on the Knollwood Mall stormwater improvement to incorporate a larger area outside
of the Knollwood Mall property that is not currently being treated, and drains directly into the
Minnehaha Creek.
MCWD has offered to fund and initiate a study that would attempt to create a sub-area
stormwater management plan. Rouse Properties and the City support this planning effort. The
intent is to prepare a stormwater management concept plan for the Knollwood Mall area,
estimate the cost of the project and evaluate the plan’s viability. The cost of the project would be
split between Rouse Properties and MCWD.
At the conclusion of the sub-area stormwater planning effort, the City could be asked to partner
in a regional stormwater treatment facility. Most of the potential plans include mechanical lift
stations. The City may be the most experienced with the operations and maintenance of such
facilities, and could be asked to serve that role. The City would only consider that possibility
under the regional stormwater options. The City would not participate in a private system for the
Knollwood Mall alone.
The sub-area stormwater plan being pursued is to establish a regional pond near the creek, not on
the Knollwood property. This plan, however, will take some time to complete. An alternative
plan to accommodate the stormwater on the Knollwood Mall site was prepared as a fall-back
position, should the off-site pond be found to be unviable.
A summary showing the location of the back-up plan is attached. It shows a dry pond as phase
1, and underground infiltration tanks replacing the dry pond in phase 2.
KNOLLWOOD MALL REDEVELOPMENT
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
JULY 1, 2013
Developer:
Architect:
Civil Engineer:
Landscape Architect:
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 3
KNOLLWOOD MALL REDEVELOPMENT
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
JULY 1, 2013
NarrativePageͳ
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Rouse Properties is the Owner / Operator of Knollwood Mall. The Landlord’s goal is to
continually improve the overall quality of the Shopping Center and meet the demands of the
retail community and the local customer base. Therefore, a reconfiguration and enhancement is
necessary to re-energize the retail property and to better serve the shopping and dining needs of
the St. Louis Park trade area. It is necessary to invest capital into the mall building and site to
reposition the retail property in the community. The mall must be made more relevant to attract
new and retain existing national and preferred retailers and restaurants. Upgrading and updating
the shopping environment will increase customer traffic which is key to the future success of the
asset. The improvements should foster an increase in mall occupancy and contribute to
increased sales volumes among the mall’s current and future retailers and restaurants, thus
improving the financial performance of the mall and tenants.
Rouse and the design teams have worked to deliver a plan that we believe addresses most aspects
of the PUD requirements and the comments provided by the Community Development Dept. In
addition, the team has collaborated with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to
identify design solutions and incorporate feasible water management systems into the project,
with the intent to enter into a partnership arrangement for the funding and execution of the work.
The proposed scope of work for the Knollwood Mall enhancements includes (i) the addition of a
freestanding retail outparcel building of approximately 11,500 s.f., (ii) the demolition of
approximately 92,500 s.f of existing mall shop GLA, (iii) the construction of approximately
25,000 s.f. of new junior box retail spaces, (iv) the renovation of approximately 71,400 s.f. of
existing mall shop GLA, (iv) the construction of parking area to infill the area previously
occupied by a portion of the mall shop retail area. These improvements result in a net decrease
of approximately 15,250 s.f. of retail GLA and a net increase of 50 on-site parking spaces,
resulting in an improved parking ratio from 4.63/1000 s.f. GLA to 4.67/1000 s.f. of GLA.
We strongly believe that the proposed improvements will benefit all of the remaining and
proposed tenants at the Shopping Center by enhancing the overall quality of the Knollwood Mall
and increasing its attractiveness as a shopping destination.
Construction sequence is anticipated to begin with the renovation of existing vacant space
adjacent to the existing Old Navy retail store. Once completed, Applebee’s will move from the
enclosed mall to this newly prepared space. Concurrently, site preparation and building
construction for the freestanding outparcel building will begin. Upon completion, Panera’s will
relocate from the enclosed mall, thus allowing for the start of demolition and reconstruction of
the Shopping center. Tenants within the mall that will remain will operate during construction
and an access and construction sequence plan will be established with Mall Ownership and the
selected construction company.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 4
KNOLLWOOD MALL REDEVELOPMENT
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
JULY 1, 2013
NarrativePageʹ
The co mmercial property value of the mall will increase with the physical improvements to the
property and expected increases in sales volumes of the mall tenants. This increase in mall
property value is expected to increase values of surrounding properties.
INFORMAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL
Since February of 2013, Rouse and the design team have been sharing site information and
schematic redevelopment plans with the city and MCWD in a collaborative design process.
Rouse and the design team also participated in numerous working meetings with the city and
MCWD which resulted in the below informal submittal to the city on April 19, 2013:
x Site Plan
x Landscape Concept Plan
x Storm Water Concept Plan: Underground Infiltration
x Storm Water Concept Plan: Open Pond
x Exterior Elevations
x Boring Reference Maps & Boring Logs
x Conceptual Renderings
x Existing Stormwater Conditions (map)
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
The following documents constitute the formal PUD amendment submittal:
NARRATIVE
REPORTS:
o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (reference submittal via Braun FTP site, May
10, 2013)
o Traffic Review of Knollwood Mall Revision, Technical Memorandum, Spack
Consulting, April 1, 2013
DRAWINGS:
o Land Title Survey (ALTA/ACSM)(4 sheets)
o A.SP.10.01 Site Plan
o A.SP.10.02 Photometric Plan
o A.01.20.01 Exterior Elevations
o A.01.20.02 Exterior Elevations
o C0.0 Civil Notes, Legend, & Abbreviations
o C1.0 Demolition, Protections, Traffic Control, and Erosion Control Plan
o C1.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) & Erosion Control Details
o C2.1 Layout & Surfacing Plan (North)
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 5
KNOLLWOOD MALL REDEVELOPMENT
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
JULY 1, 2013
NarrativePage͵
o C2.2 Layout & Surfacing Plan (South)
o C3.1 Grading Plan (North)
o C3.2 Grading Plan (South)
o C4.1 Utility Plan (North)
o C4.2 Utility Plan (South)
o C5.0 Details & Sections
o L1.0 Landscape Plan : Overall Area
o L2.0 Landscape Area Plans
o L2.1 Landscape Area Plans
o L2.2 Landscape Area Plans And Planting Details
CALCULATIONS
o 10-year Storm Water Pipe Sizing Calculations
SITE IMPROVEMENTS & LANDSCAPE
The general layout of the concept plan is maintained, however, the out-building has been
reconfigured to reduce the site impact area adjacent to the out-building, in order to honor tenant
lease agreements.
The proposed Knollwood Mall site improvements enhance the aesthetic experience and safety
for the mall user. The new site plan clarifies and separates both pedestrian and vehicular
circulation. Pedestrians have been given newer, safer ways to access the core of the mall both on
the south from Aquila and Highway 7 and on the north from 36th Street. These new pedestrian
ways are grade separated, signed and landscaped to ensure a more comfortable route to the mall.
In addition the parking configuration has been designed with a clear loop circulation defined by
landscape islands. These islands define the circulation path and parking “rooms” with trees and
berms that will eventually will help shade some of the hard surface parking areas.
To further enhance the mall experience pedestrian plazas are planned outside of the new
buildings. The plazas activate exterior spaces and uses of mall tenants by providing an aesthetic
armature that ties the mall uses together. These plazas have enhanced paving patterns, raised
landscape beds, planters, benches, seat-walls and sculpture.
The plan has incorporated over 100 trees, 600 shrubs and lawn areas that will be irrigated to
ensure a lush “green” environment well into the future.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 6
KNOLLWOOD MALL REDEVELOPMENT
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
JULY 1, 2013
NarrativePageͶ
ARCHITECTURE
This reimaging of Knollwood Mall splits an existing interior mall concourse to create new
outward facing retail. The architectural style of the new outward facing retail is intended to
complement the existing outward facing mall architecture, and bring a new pedestrian oriented
outdoor approach to the center. Existing corner retail frames new landscaped walkways and an
exciting new tenant mix. Quality materials ensure this renovation’s long lasting aesthetic impact
to Knollwood Mall and the surrounding community.
PARKING
Reduction of Mall GLA will provide additional parking spaces and increase the parking ratio for
the entire site. New parking fields will be located in front of the new outparcel building
providing direct and safe access to those tenant spaces. Steps have been taken to reorient the
added parking to maximize the safety, flow, and efficiency of the area affected.
Existing parking for the entire mall site is approximately 2,228 spaces for the ± 481,700 s.f. of
GLA. After the completion, the new site will provide approximately 2,175 parking spaces for
the ± 646,255 s.f. of GLA. Per the current zoning codes for the City as outlined under Article V -
Table 36-361a, post renovation parking required is 2,076 spaces. Therefore, the proposed site
plan provides ±100 spaces more than code required.
If a dry basin is ultimately implemented as described in the Storm Water section below,
approximately 100 stalls would be eliminated in the extreme northwest corner of the site. This is
not anticipated to be problematic due to the excess parking stalls on the project after the
proposed redevelopment and since these stalls are located over 300 feet from the nearest store
frontage. In addition, these stalls would be reestablished after the whole mall solution was
implemented in the future.
TRAFFIC
A traffic review was completed for the proposed project by Spack Consulting, dated April 1,
2013 (attached). The report concluded that the project will have negligible impact on the area
transportation system and that no improvements are necessary to accommodate the renovation
plan.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 7
KNOLLWOOD MALL REDEVELOPMENT
FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
JULY 1, 2013
NarrativePageͷ
STORM WATER
Of f-site Storm Water Solution
An April 9, 2013 letter from the MCWD to the mall encouraged exploration of partnership
opportunities with the mall for storm water management, redevelopment, and broader goals of
the community.
In a June 8 email from MCWD to city and mall, MCWD clarified that the mall redevelopment
may proceed with “no major storm water infrastructure, in favor of spending an extended period
of time collaboratively studying area wide solutions off-site.”
On-site Storm Water Solution
An iterative process of working with the city and MCWD resulted in a June 5, 2013 letter from
the MCWD outlining a proposed plan to satisfy rate control and water quality standards for the
whole mall property. In addition, the plan treats substantial areas of regional city runoff from
off-site.
Dry Basin – Potential Phase 1 of On-site Solution (if needed)
Should an on-site solution become necessary, a preferred first phase for the mall would be a dry
basin as outlined in various communications to the city and MCWD. It is a relatively
inexpensive first phase to help defray initial mall capitol expenses and delivers part of the storm
water rate and treatment benefits sought by the city and MCWD. It also preserves the mall's
discretion for retaining the basin or converting to an entirely mechanical system in the future.
Reduced Impervious Surface
The redevelopment co nstruction impact area is 7.4 acres. Within this area, the existing
impervious is 6.9 acres and the proposed impervious is 6.5 acres for a reduction of 0.4 acres.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 8
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 9
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 10
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 11
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 12
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 13
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 14
k n o l l w o o d m a l l storm water concept plan: underground infiltration “mall + regional”4-19-2013080200Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 7) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 15
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or
comments that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the proposed terms for acquiring the
property located at 4601 Highway 7?
SUMMARY: Staff has reached agreement on terms to purchase the former Professional
Instruments Company property located at 4601 Highway 7 (“subject property”). Attached is a
summary of those key terms.
At the June 17th Study Session, Staff indicated that they were pursuing the potential acquisition
of a strategically located parcel that is adjacent to the proposed Belt Line SWLRT Station. A
written report providing an update on the proposed acquisition of the property located at 4601
Highway 7 was provided at the July 1st Study Session.
EDA ownership of this parcel will provide the City control of the future use of the property and
ensure that it is used to the maximum benefit of the community and the future SWLRT line. The
property is actively being marketed and numerous parties have expressed interest in the
property. Based upon the tenor of some of these inquires, the property could end up being
purchased for an allowable use that may not be an optimal use for a site near an LRT station.
EDA ownership will ensure use of the property is consistent with the City’s station area plans.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The negotiated purchase price for 4601
Highway 7 is $2.25 million. This price is well within market according to the City Assessor. The
proposed Purchase Agreement will be brought to the August 5th EDA meeting for formal
consideration. The EDA would incur additional costs related to building demolition and property
management. The cost of acquisition and related expenses would be covered by the Development
Fund with the intent to recoup the EDA’s investment from the future sale or leasing of the
property. Grant and/or TIF funds may be used as well.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Background
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
BACKGROUND:
Staff has reached agreement on terms to purchase the former Professional Instruments Company
property located at 4601 Highway 7 (“subject property”). The subject property fronts on the
south side of CSAH 25 just east of Belt Line Blvd. The property consists of two parcels which
total 3.16 acres. It lies immediately northeast of the proposed Belt Line SWLRT station platform.
EDA ownership of this parcel will provide the City control of the future use of the property and
ensure that it is used to the maximum benefit of the community and the future SWLRT line. The
property is actively being marketed and numerous parties have expressed interest in the
property. Based upon the tenor of some of these inquires, the property could end up being
purchased for an allowable use that may not be an optimal use for a site near an LRT station.
EDA ownership will ensure use of the property is consistent with the City’s station area plans.
Acquisition and clearance of this site will also improve the image and appearance of the CSAH
25/Highway 7 corridor. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan the EDA has actively
encouraged redevelopment in this corridor for some time. Acquiring, clearing and preparing the
subject property for redevelopment is a logical next step in that process.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
What is the purchase price?
The purchase price for the property is $2,250,000 or approximately $16 per square foot. The
purchase price was negotiated and based upon review of comparable land sale information in the
area. According to the City Assessor, the acquisition price of the subject property is considered
reasonable and well within market. The current assessed value of the subject property is
$1,532,000 or approximately $11 per square foot. The property’s value lies in its prominent
location east of Highway 100, visibility along CSAH 25 and proximity to the future Belt Line
SWLRT station as well as the difficulty of assembling 3 acres in St. Louis Park.
The EDA would incur additional costs related to building demolition and property management.
The cost of acquisition and related expenses would be covered by the Development Fund with
the intent to recoup the EDA’s investment from the future sale or leasing of the property. Grant
and/or TIF funds may be used as well.
Under the proposed Purchase Agreement, the EDA has 60 days from the date of approval to
conduct its due diligence of the property. To that end, Staff has ordered a Phase I Environmental
Assessment and has obtained a recent ALTA/CSM Land Title Survey of the property. One of the
contingencies within the proposed Purchase Agreement is that the results of the environmental
investigation must be acceptable to the EDA.
Property Tenants
There are currently two leases in effect on this property. One is with Professional Instrument
Company, Inc. which rents the building. It is owned by members of the Seller’s family. The
other is with Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. which rents a small portion of the subject property for
the use of two billboards. Both leases are on a month-to-month basis. The Seller is currently in
the process of terminating these leases. Under the proposed Purchase Agreement, both tenants
will be required to remove all their equipment and personal property (including the billboards)
from the property prior to closing. The Seller recently received an email from Clear Channel
confirming its understanding of the termination clause within the lease and its agreement to
remove the billboards and supporting structures in accordance with the lease agreement.
Despite the fact that the proposed Purchase Agreement is being entered into by willing parties
and is an arms-length transaction, the tenants of the subject property are entitled to relocation
benefits under the state codification of the federal Uniform Relocation Act because the EDA is a
public entity. Staff has retained Evergreen Land Services to determine the EDA’s financial
exposure to both tenants. Since the principals that constitute Professional Instrument Company
are members of the same family selling the property, and since the company is already in the
process of vacating the property, Professional Instrument Company has agreed to sign a waiver
of relocation benefits. As for the billboards, the Seller recently gave notice to Clear Channel of
its intent to terminate their lease as the Seller does not wish the billboards to encumber the sale
of the property regardless of the buyer. Canceling the lease is not financially significant to the
Seller since the monthly rental income of the property is only $220 per month. According to the
federal statute, Clear Channel is entitled to the cost of dismantling and moving the billboard
structures from the property or their depreciated value in place, whichever is less. Compensation
due Clear Channel in this case is different from the billboard removal at Highway 7 & Louisiana
because Clear Channel does not own the subject property and was leasing the property on a
month-to-month basis with the knowledge that lease could be terminated at any time upon
receipt of a 90 day written notice. Should the EDA’s relocation obligations for the billboards
prove to be more significant than currently anticipated, the proposed Purchase Agreement gives
the EDA the right to terminate the agreement.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
Purchase Agreement Terms
The key terms included within the proposed Purchase Agreement between 4601 Highway 7 LLC
(“Seller”) and the EDA (“Buyer”) are listed below.
1. PURCHASE PRICE FOR PROPERTY AND TERMS.
a. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price for the Property is 2,250,000.00.
b. TERMS:
1. EARNEST MONEY: Buyer agrees to pay $25,000.00 earnest money to Seller.
Earnest Money will become nonrefundable at the end of the Due Diligence
Period, provided that if all conditions of termination and removal of the
Billboards are not satisfied by the Closing Date, the Seller will refund the
Earnest Money to Buyer.
2. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Warranty
Deed conveying marketable fee simple title to the Property to Buyer.
3. BILLBOARD LEASE TERMINATION: Upon satisfaction of all contingencies,
Seller agrees to notify Clear Channel (the “Billboard Company”) that Seller is
exercising its right to terminate all existing billboard lease agreements (the
“Billboard Leases”) in connection with all billboards located on the Property.
Seller will cause the removal of all Billboards from the Property prior to the
Closing Date.
2. DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLER. In addition to the
Warranty Deed and other required documents, Seller will deliver to Buyer at closing:
a. Well disclosure certification, along with any certifications that the Seller has
caused the existing well on the Property to be capped as may be required by state
or federal statutes, rules or regulations; provided that in the event the cost of
capping such well exceeds $1,800.00, Seller may elect to terminate this
Agreement and refund the Earnest Money to the Buyer;
b. Any notices, certificates, and affidavits regarding any private sewage systems,
underground storage tanks, and environmental conditions; and
c. Any other documents reasonably required by Buyer to evidence that title to the
Property is marketable and that Seller has complied with the terms of the
Purchase Agreement.
3. CONTINGENCIES. Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property is contingent upon the
following:
a. Approval of this Purchase Agreement by the EDA;
b. Buyer conducting environmental investigations on the Property and receiving
reports that are satisfactory to Buyer;
c. Seller’s procurement of a Certificate of Property Maintenance from the City of St.
Louis Park’s Inspections Department prior to closing;
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
d. Seller’s removal of all personal property, junk, barrels, and debris from the
Property; and
e. Buyer’s determination of marketable title and;
f. Buyer’s determination that any relocation benefits payable to the Tenant and/or
Billboard Company will not exceed a reasonable amount as determined by Buyer
in its sole discretion.
Buyer will have sixty (60) days from the date of approval of this Agreement to remove or
waive the foregoing contingencies (the “Due Diligence Period”). These contingencies
are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. If Buyer gives written
notice to Seller that all contingencies are satisfied or waived, Seller will notify the
Billboard Company of Seller’s intent to terminate all Billboard Leases and to remove all
Billboards, and Buyer and Seller will proceed to close the transaction.
If one or more of the contingencies is not satisfied, or is not satisfied within the Due
Diligence Period, and is not waived by Buyer, this Agreement will be void at the written
option of Buyer, and Seller will return the Earnest Money to Buyer. Buyer will also
deliver to Seller copies of all documentation gathered during the Due Diligence Period,
including without limitation all survey, environmental or soil tests.
4. TITLE EXAMINATION/CURING TITLE DEFECTS. Buyer will, at its expense and
within a reasonable time after Seller’s acceptance of this Agreement, obtain a commitment
for title insurance for the Property. Buyer will have 10 business days after receipt of the
Commitment and executed Purchase Agreement to examine the same and to deliver
written objections to title to Seller, or Buyer’s right to do so will be deemed waived.
Seller will have until the end of the Due Diligence Period (or such later date as the parties
may agree upon) to make title marketable, at Seller’s cost. In the event that title to the
Property cannot be made marketable or is not made marketable by Seller within the Due
Diligence Period, then this Agreement may be terminated at the option of Buyer. In the
event the cost to make title to the property marketable exceeds $15,000.00, Seller may
elect to cancel this agreement and the Earnest Money will be refunded to Buyer.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS. Buyer acknowledges that it has been
authorized by Seller to enter the Property and conduct environmental investigations of the
Property.
6. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Seller and Buyer will
prorate all taxes for the year of closing based on the Closing Date. Seller will pay all special
assessments regarding the Property which are levied or pending as of the Closing Date.
7. CLOSING DATE. The date of closing will be on the earlier of (a) seven (7) days
following the satisfaction of (i) all contingencies, (ii) termination of the Billboard Leases
and removal of the Billboards, and (iii) termination of the Tenant lease and vacation of
the Tenant from the Property; or (b) December 30, 2013 (“Closing Date”).
8. POSSESSION/UTILITIES.
a. Possession. Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Property free of all personal
property, junk, barrels, and debris to Buyer not later than the Closing Date.
b. Utilities. Seller shall pay all utility charges prior to the Closing Date.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
9. SELLER’ WARRANTIES. Seller represents to Buyer as of the Closing Date that:
a. Mechanics' Liens. Seller warrants that, prior to the closing, Seller will pay in
full all amounts due for labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished
within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with
construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the
Property caused by or resulting from any action of Seller.
b. Notices. Seller warrants that Seller has not received any notice from any
governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in
connection with the Property, except if any violations are noted in the Certificate
of Property Maintenance. It is the Buyer’s intention to demolish the existing
building and Buyer will be responsible for any items the City of St. Louis Park’s
Inspections Department notes during the Certificate of Property Maintenance
inspection process.
c. Tenants. Seller warrants that (i) the existing lease of the Property to Professional
Instrument Company, Inc. (“Tenant”) shall have been terminated and the Tenant
shall have vacated the Property prior to the Closing Date; and (ii) the existing
Billboard Leases shall have been terminated and the Billboards shall have been
removed from the Property prior to the Closing Date.
10. CLOSING COSTS/RECORDING FEES/DEED TAX. Seller will pay: (a) the cost of
any documents required to clear title or to evidence marketable title; (b) any transfer or
deed taxes and any deferred taxes due as a result of this transaction; (c) one-half of
closing fees customarily charged by the title company; and (d) any other operating costs
of the Property up to the date of closing. Buyer will pay: (a) any environmental
investigation costs; (b) costs of an initial title commitment, title insurance and
endorsements; (3) one-half of closing fees customarily charged by the title company.
Each party shall pay its respective real estate broker and attorneys’ fees.
11. INSPECTIONS. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer will be
entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying, inspections, investigations,
soil borings and testing as Buyer will elect. Buyer will also be entitled to a general
walkthrough inspection within five days of the Closing Date.
12. DEFAULT/REMEDIES. If Buyer defaults under this Agreement, Seller has the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such election to Buyer, which notice
shall specify the default. If Buyer fails to cure such default within 15 days of the date of
such notice, Seller may terminate this Agreement and retain the Earnest Money as
Seller’s liquidated damages, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The
termination of this Agreement (and retention of the Earnest Money) will be the sole
remedies available to Seller for such default by Buyer, and Buyer will not be further
liable for damages. If Seller defaults under this Agreement, Buyer will have the right (i)
to terminate this Agreement (in which case Buyer will be entitled to a refund of the
Earnest Money), or (ii) to enforce and recover from Seller specific performance of this
Agreement. The termination of this Agreement (and refund of the Earnest Money), or the
enforcement and recovery from Seller of specific performance of this Agreement, will be
the sole remedies available to Buyer for such default by Seller, and Seller will not be
further liable for damages.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Highway 7
13. RELOCATION BENEFITS; INDEMNIFICATION. Seller acknowledges that it is
not being displaced from the Property as a result of this property sale and that it is not
eligible for relocation assistance and benefits. Buyer acknowledges that it is responsible
for all relocation assistance and benefits that may be due to the Tenant and Billboard
Company, together with any consultants’ fees that Buyer may incur in connection with
legal action required to resolve any relocation assistance or benefits dispute with such
Tenant or Billboard Company. For purposes of this Agreement, “relocation assistance
and benefits” shall have the meanings ascribed to them by the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
Next Steps
The final Purchase Agreement will be brought to the EDA August 5th for formal consideration.
Staff will consult with the EDA near the end of the 60 day Due Diligence Period regarding the
results of the Phase I Environmental Assessment and the likely relocation settlement amounts to
determine if the EDA wishes to proceed with the property acquisition. Assuming all
contingencies within the Agreement can be reasonably satisfied, closing would occur before the
end of the year. Upon closing, staff will seek to have the building secured for the winter and
removed next spring.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 22, 2013
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Business Park Rezoning Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any questions or concerns about
the consideration of rezoning parcels into the new Business Park Zoning District?
SUMMARY:
The City Council adopted the new Business Park Zoning District in 2012. The district is a
hybrid between the Industrial Park and Office districts, as it would allow for some light assembly
and manufacturing, with a greater emphasis on office and medical office uses. Heavy
manufacturing, major truck terminals and outdoor storage are not allowed.
Following adoption of the new ordinance, City Council directed staff to move forward with
rezoning the properties designated Business Park on the Comprehensive Land Use Map. This
includes 57 properties (41 owners). Several meetings were held with business and property
owners, and two larger open-house meetings were held in September 2012. Additional contact
with property owners also occurred, including meetings, phone calls and email communications.
On November 7, 2012 a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission. The Commission
recommended approval with the exception of three properties, whose owners objected to the
rezoning prior to the public hearing. Three additional property owners spoke at the hearing; one
objected to rezoning his properties, and the others had questions and/or were new property
owners. Staff agreed to re-contact all property owners and discuss rezoning properties further.
In June postcards were sent out to all current property owners about the rezoning with links to
information on the city’s web site and contact information for two planning staff. Additional
correspondence has occurred, and staff would like to bring it back for resolution in August.
Several property owners are anticipating and welcoming the zoning change, which will allow
additional uses and more flexibility. Discussion of allowing residential in this district has
occurred during the course of LRT station area planning. Staff is proposing that this would be
allowed via a Planned Unit Development (PUD), under a revised process that will be coming
forward for Council approval within the next few months.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary Table – Business Park Uses
Overview Maps - Business Park Locations
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Business Park Rezoning Update
DISCUSSION
The concept of a Business Park designation and zoning was to address the changing needs of
industrial areas to allow a wider mix of uses desired by property owners and the marketplace.
Allowing these while moving away from the heavier industrial uses was taken on as a step
toward more transit-oriented development (TOD) uses.
Through the course of considering zoning changes to properties in the areas designated for
Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan, staff was also working on the Beltline Station Area
Design Guidelines, with Hennepin County Community Works on the Transitional Station Area
Action Plans (TSAAP) and other background work with ULI and others on development
opportunities. In station areas, discussion of whether or not multiple-family residential should be
included in the Business Park zoning district was discussed at several junctures. While the
typical TOD is thought of as mixed-use residential and commercial, along the SW corridor most
of the uses are more business oriented, as they are located along a rail corridor. The Business
Park was to transition from heavy industrial into allowing more uses and more density in the
station areas.
Throughout this spring, we continued to work determinedly on station area planning, seeking
ways to accommodate residential while not allowing it in every Business Park area Staff has
determined with a revised PUD process, there is a way to allow residential, at the discretion of
the City Council. Staff is working on the details of a new PUD ordinance and will be bringing
this ordinance revision to the Council in the coming months. This method will provide a
relatively smooth way for appropriate and desired development to be approved by the city. This
process does not change the Business Park zoning at this time.
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Business Park Rezoning Update
Business Park Zoning Summary
The Business Park Zoning District is based on the recommendations of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. The intent statements from the Comprehensive Plan regarding the new district are:
• Encouraging the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse
mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.
• Application of the category for larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide:
§ A greater diversity of jobs
§ Higher development densities and jobs per acre
§ Higher quality site and building architectural design
§ Increased tax revenues for the community
• Appropriate uses may include office, office showroom-warehousing, research and
development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and
medical laboratories.
• Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office
and light industrial uses of the employment center.
Summary Table – Business Park Compared to Office and Industrial Park
Performance Standard / Use Business Park Office Industrial Park
Outdoor storage Prohibited Prohibited Accessory Use
Hours of operation Limited when adjacent to
residential
No restrictions Permit needed for
overnight use when
adjacent to residential
Offices Permitted Permitted Conditional Use Permit
Banks / Medical Offices Permitted Permitted Not permitted
Restaurants / Retail / Service Permitted if < 25% of
building
Permitted Permitted only in a
Planned Unit
Development
Light manufacturing Conditional Use Permit Not permitted Permitted
Heavy manufacturing Not permitted Not permitted Permitted
Warehouse / Storage Permitted if < 50% of the
building
Not permitted Permitted
Large item retail (i.e.,
furniture)
Permitted if < 15% of the
building
Not permitted Permitted if < 15% of
the building
Planned Unit Developments Only jobs oriented Unrestricted Only retail / service
Setbacks when adjacent to
residential
30 feet or building height Half of building
height
35 feet or use of a
formula
Maximum building height 110 feet / 55 feet if adjacent
to single family residential
240 feet 75 feet
Maximum floor area ratio 2.0 1.5 0.5
HIGHWAY 7FRANCE35THHIGHWAY 100B
E
L
T
L
I
N
E
PARK GLEN
36TH
37TH
36 1/2
31ST
UTICASALEMEXCELSIORSERVICE DR
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
7
RALEIGHM
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y GLENHURSTKIPLING34THJOPPA
PARK CENTEROTTAWARANDALLTOLEDO33RDNATCHEZLYNN
HUNTINGTONINGLEWOODNB HWY100 S TO CORD25QUENTINMINIKAHDANB HWY100 S TO 36TH ST WPRIVATEHIGHWAY 7SERVICE DR HIGHW
A
Y
7 INGLEWOODGLENHURSTJOPPASALEM31ST
HUNTINGTON31ST
36TH
N
A
T
C
H
E
Z
RALEIGHHIGHWAY 7LYNNComprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Business Park AreasBeltline LRT Station Area
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
1,000 Feet
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Update Page 4
W
O
O
D
D
A
L
EHIGHWAY 7
35TH
OXFORD37TH
GOODRICH
HAMILTON
HIGHWAY 100SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7ALABAMAWALKER
36THXENWOOD
PRIVATE
COLORADOCAMERATA
YOSEMITEZARTHANPARK CENTERBRUNSWICK
WEBSTERMEDLEYSB HWY100 S TO WOODDALE AVE S
WEBSTERWALKERBRUNSWICKALABAMA35TH
PRIVATEYOSEMITEHIGHWAY 7HIGHWAY 100ZARTHANBRUNSWICKComprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Business Park AreasWooddale LRT Station Area
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
600 Feet
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Update Page 5
LAKEOXFORDWALKER
HIGHWAY 7
37TH LOUIS
IANA
NORTHT
A
F
TPENNSYLVANIA
EDGEBROOKMO
N
I
T
O
R
EDGEWOODOREGONHOSPITAL SERVICE
SERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7
CAMBRIDGE
HIGHWAY 7 LAKESERVICE DR HIGHWAY 7
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Business Park AreasLouisiana LRT Station Area
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
740 Feet
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Update Page 6
Lenox
Wolfe Park
Elmwood
Sorensen
Fern Hill
Triangle
Oak Hill
Minikahda VistaBrooklawns
Meadowbrook
Bronx Park
Creekside
South Oak Hill
Birchwood
Brookside Browndale
Texa Tonka
Minikahda Oaks
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: NeighborhoodsNeighborhoods nearby Business Park areas
City of St. Louis Park 2030 Comprehensive PlanPrinted August 22nd, 2012
Legend
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2,400 Feet
Study Session Meeting of July 22, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Update Page 7