HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/08/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 26, 2013
(Mayor Jacobs Out?)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 9, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Park Shelter Restrooms
3. 7:05 p.m. Business Park Rezoning
4. 7:20 p.m. Southwest LRT Update
7:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
7:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. July 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. Highway 100 Project Update
7. Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed
8. 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
9. The West End AUAR Update
10. Open to Business Program 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: August 26, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 9, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on September 9, 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 regularly scheduled Study Session on September 9, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 9, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 9, 2013
Study Session, September 9, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Louisiana LRT Station Area Planning Update – Community Development (60 minutes)
City staff is working with an advisory committee to prepare a framework plan for the
Louisiana LRT Station Area. The plan will include desired access and circulation
improvements, land use recommendations, and design guidelines for private development. A
broader community meeting for input on the draft concept plans is tentatively scheduled for
Wednesday, September 25.
3. Ownership and Replacement Costs in Right of Way – Operations & Recreation/Engineering
(45 minutes)
Council has requested that staff identify items in the Right of Way and what our current
practice is for paying to remove these items.
4. Deer Management Update – Operations & Recreation/Police (45 minutes)
Staff will review the current Deer Management Policy with Council.
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: 9:10 pm
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Park Shelter Restrooms
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. Staff desires direction on the policy
question noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to consider having Park
Shelter/Pavilion Restrooms open during times that the facilities are not staffed?
SUMMARY: City Council has requested staff to explore the possibility of making the
permanent restrooms at our park pavilions/shelters more accessible from an availability
perspective (unlocked for greater periods of time) Outlined later in this report is the history,
current policy, location options, open and close concepts, cleaning expense estimates, other
community local policies, and input from St. Louis Park Police Department.
Also included in this report is information Council requested regarding a summary of recycling
locations and tons of materials recycled in our parks.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Making permanent Park Shelter Restrooms
more accessible from a time availability perspective will require additional costs for cleaning,
staff time to open/close or capital and operating expense to convert to an electronic system. The
actual cost will vary depending on the number of buildings and the conversion to an electronic
locking system.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Attachment A
Prepared by: Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Park Shelter Restrooms
DISCUSSION
CURRENT POLICY: The St. Louis Park Operations & Recreation Department opens
permanent restrooms only when staffed, rented, and available for special events or monitored by
volunteers. The Oak Hill Park Pavilion building is open June – August. This works well because
there is staff hired to monitor the splash pad. Many park locations have portable toilets.
Permanent Restroom Locations
Park Open Option
Aquila Year-round
Birchwood Year-round
Browndale Year-round
Fern Hill Spring Summer Fall (no heat)
Louisiana Oaks #1 (Pavilion) Year-round
Louisiana Oaks #2 (**new restroom building) Spring Summer Fall (no heat)
Nelson Park Year-round
Oak Hill #1 (pavilion) Year-round
Oak Hill #2 (picnic shelter) Year-round
Parkview Year-round
Wolfe Park* Year-round
*Because Wolfe Park is near the Rec Center where bathrooms are accessible, the need to keep
this open during nonscheduled events is not as great.
** A 24/7 restroom building concept is being constructed on the north end of Louisiana Oaks
Park this summer as part of the scheduled improvement which will be operational spring of
2014. This restroom structure will be fully plumbed with a men’s and women’s separate area. It
has been designed to be as vandal resistant as possible, concrete, stainless steel fixtures, steel
doors, etc. Because it will not be heated, it will have season use (Spring, Summer, Fall)
HISTORY: The park pavilion/shelter open restroom concept has been problematic due to
vandalism and discussed in the past with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.
When the building at Nelson Park was built, the plan was to have the restrooms open every day
for park patrons and regional trail users. After having the restrooms open for two months, it was
significantly vandalized. Staff spent approximately one month repairing the restroom area. As a
result of this vandalism, the only time the restroom is open at Nelson Park is during staffed
events, rentals, summer playgrounds or winter rinks.
Browndale Park restrooms have been vandalized twice since the new building was built in 2005.
The neighborhood leadership has a key to this building for use during neighborhood events. It
has been left unlocked in the past and that is when the vandalism has occurred.
Louisiana Oaks Park restrooms have also been vandalized many times, not with the same extent
of damage as Nelson and Browndale Park restrooms, but more frequently. The Louisiana Oaks
Park restrooms are opened and closed by the athletic association on-site during scheduled use.
Because of the use by athletic associations, this building is open many nights and weekends.
Oak Hill Park restrooms are open daily during the summer months and we have not had any
vandalism primarily because the Oak Hill Park Splash Pad is staffed during the week
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Park Shelter Restrooms
OPEN/CLOSE OPTIONS: There are two options to open/close park buildings for public
restroom use – utilizing staff or electronic locks.
Option #1 – Staff
Full-time or seasonal staff would unlock/lock buildings daily (seasonally or year-round).
Benefits
• No up-front capital expense
• Quickly note cleaning/repair needs
• Guarantee open/close
Cost
• Expensive (staff expense: open/close seasonally could be up to $30,000 annually including
the over time for staff on evenings and weekends)
• Many overtime hours – difficult scheduling
• Buildings would not all open/close at the same time (time needed to travel from park to park)
• Potential for vandalism is high
• Additional expense for staff or contract cleaning
Option #2 – Electronic Locks
All buildings would have electronic locks installed to open/close from off-site. We could wait
until fiber is available near each shelter and install electronic locks at that time. The scenario
below is an option that is available now through Comcast (internet provider) and UHL (security
provider that is currently used by the Fire and Police Department)
Benefits
• Reduce staff expense
• System is monitored
• Wi-Fi included for all park buildings
Cost
• Up-front expense:
o $13,000 for new server (one-time expense)
o $15,000 per building for electronic locks
o $800 per building for annual electronic service fee
• Overtime staff call-outs for electronic issues
• Potential for vandalism is very high
• Open buildings with no security
o Additional expense for staff or contract cleaning
Option #3 – Volunteers
We would work with the Volunteer Coordinator on developing a program to use volunteers in
our community. It would require volunteers to have a regular commitment to building(s) and
schedules. As with any volunteer program we would work with their individual schedules to see
if our business needs could be met. The concept would be to get specific individuals and
assigned to buildings to open and close. More research would need to be done on this option and
it would be dependent on number of volunteers and their availability to open and close and
monitor their assigned location.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Park Shelter Restrooms
CLEANING & RESTOCKING: All restrooms will require daily cleaning and/or restocking of
supplies regardless of open/close system. Staff is estimating 30 minutes per restroom
(approximately one hour per-building with a men’s and women’s restroom). This is assuming
there are no significant messes, repairs, vandalism, etc. Each park location, for example, would
require a staff person for one hour per day, seven days per week. Estimated staff expense to
clean four buildings open seasonally (May-October) would be approximately $20,000 annually.
Expense for additional supplies, repairs, and emergency call-outs has not been estimated for this
report. It should be noted, when available, seasonal staff can be utilized for cleaning and
open/close duty to lower expenses. Seasonal staff hours are limited by union contract.
OTHER COMMUNITIES: The outline attached provides a list of what other communities
have implemented for public restroom use (Attachment A). Many of these facilities are open
seasonally (Spring, Summer, Fall) unless they have daily winter activities in the park.
KEY QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
• Number and locations of buildings to open throughout the community?
• Open year-round or seasonally (May-October)?
• Time frame buildings are open (6 a.m. – 10 p.m.)?
• Opened by staff or electronically?
• Cleaned daily by staff or contract service? (Minnetonka uses a contracted service to clean
restrooms).
• Consider placing portable toilets at all park locations
o $50 per month standard units
o $165 per month for ADA accessible units
POLICE DEPARTMENT INPUT: The Police Department was consulted about this request.
Lori Dreier, Lieutenant from the police department stated: “having the restrooms in park
buildings unlocked and unattended is a safety concern for us given the remote locations and low
traffic at these buildings. At the very least we would be concerned about increased property
damage/vandalism incidents at these locations and would be very concerned about the potential
for personal safety issues related to unattended buildings and remote locations. The Police
Department recommends increasing the number of portable toilets in lieu of having restrooms
unlocked in unattended buildings.”
RECYCLING IN OUR PARKS: Council asked staff to provide an update of what we are
currently doing with regards to recycling in our parks. The following is a summary of our
current practice. The recycling season for parks runs from approximately May 15 through
October 15, with containers strategically placed at selected parks (parks where organized league
play is held, regional parks and heavily used local parks). The Parks that have recycling
containers (and the number of containers per park noted in parentheses) include Aquila Park (5),
Aquila School (1), Birchwood Park (1), the brush disposal site (1), Cedar Knoll Park (2),
Carpenter Park (2), Dakota Park (4), Fern Hill Park (1), Freedom Park (1), Jersey Park (1),
Keystone Park (1), Lamplighter Park (2), Lilac Park (1), Louisiana Oaks Park (4), Minikahda
Vista Park (1), Nelson Park (1), Northside Park (4), Pennsylvania Park (1), Shelard Park (1),
Texa-Tonka Park (1), Twin Lakes Park (1), Victoria Park (1), Walker Field (1), Westwood Hills
Nature Center (1), and Wolfe Park (4).
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Park Shelter Restrooms
Year Recycled Material collected at parks (in tons)
2006...... 1.7
2007...... 3.2
2008...... 2.2
2009...... 1.9
2010...... 1.8
2011...... 1.9
2012...... 2.0
From the cans, plastic bottles and glass collected in parks, 90% of recycled material is plastic
bottles. Staff believes the increased recycled material collection in 2007 was due to the novelty
of the recycling effort, an increased public relations effort and the related effects of the PR effort
(less contamination in recycling containers), and placement of containers within each park.
Contamination (disposal of garbage, non-recyclables into our recycling containers) is the largest
challenge. Recycling containers with over 5-10% garbage are regarded as waste and disposed of
as trash per the waste/recycling hauler (Randy’s Sanitation).
The goal for 2013 is to reduce waste and increate the tonnage of recycling. Staff will review
container placement within each park, perhaps increase the number of containers (if have
resources/staff) and will increase effort to promote parks recycling to our organized league
participants, neighborhood associations and general public.
City Permanent Locked or
Unlocked
Supervised or
Unsupervised Time Manual or
Electronic
Date/Range -
open Portable Cleaning Damage
Golden Valley 8 locations
Locked when
not staffed N/A
1 picnic shelter
opened daily by
golf course staff Manual N/A
Yes -
several Staff None
Minnetonka 4 locations Unlocked Unsupervised 6am - 10pm Electronic
1 open all year;
3 seasonal
Yes -
several
Contract
out
Small amout of
grafitti;
otherwise not
much
Richfield All locations
Locked when
not staffed N/A 24/7 Manual N/A
Yes -
several Staff None
Crystal All locations
Locked when
not staffed N/A 24/7 Manual N/A
Yes -
several Staff None
Edina 8 locations
8 locations on
a timed
system; 6
unlocked 24/7 Unsupervised
8 locations on a
timed system; 7
days/week 6am-
10pm
8 sites -
electronic; 6
sites keyed
facilities
Mother's Day -
Halloween
Yes -
several Staff
Some vandalism;
more in the
facilities that are
open 24/7
New Hope All locations
Locked when
not staffed N/A 24/7 Manual N/A
Yes -
several Staff None
Attachment A
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Park Shelter Restrooms Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Business Park Rezoning
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.
Several property owners are anticipating and welcoming the zoning change, which will allow
additional uses and more flexibility. A few property owners are not in favor of changing the
zoning on their property at this time; the Planning Commission recommended that all properties
be rezoned, with the exception of properties owned by three property owners who formally
stated they did not want their properties rezoned. Staff has continued the conversation with these
owners, and their correspondence is attached.
The Business Park zone is intended to be a transition zone for the areas around the LRT stations
– to allow additional uses and continue the transformation into more mixed use areas.
Discussion of allowing residential in this district has occurred recently. Staff is proposing that
this would be allowed in the Business Park zoning district via a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and we are currently making changes to the PUD process to enable this under a revised
ordinance.
In addition, the city recently received a grant from Met Council to pursue and consider a new
type of regulations in the LRT station areas called “form-based zoning.” This type of zoning is
similar to the design guidelines processes we have undertaken in various areas around the city
where the design is essentially laid out in advance of development and expectations are known.
This type of zoning allows more flexibility in uses, and as it is developed, could overlay or
replace the Business Park zone.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Business Park Zoning Summary
Business Park Maps
Correspondence from Property Owners
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
DISCUSSION
Background:
The Business Park zone was developed to be a transition zone for the areas around the LRT
stations and other industrial areas in the city that are experiencing changes. The intent is to allow
a wider variety of uses, as has been recently requested in many of the industrial areas, and work
toward the transformation of the station areas into more mixed use and transit-oriented
development (TOD) areas.
The Comprehensive Plan designated the city’s more visible industrial areas which happened to
be in areas near LRT stations as Business Park. The intent was to encourage the creation of
employment centers that accommodated a greater mix of uses, higher quality of design, diversity
of jobs, higher development densities and increase property values. Rezoning the designated
properties to Business Park will bring them into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion of allowing residential in this district has occurred recently. Staff is proposing that
this would be allowed in the Business Park zoning district via a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and we are currently making changes to the PUD process to enable this under a revised
ordinance. Currently, the zoning ordinance allows PUDs approved by resolution. The proposed
change would require each PUD to be approved as a zoning ordinance. In this way, approving a
PUD by ordinance is a more discretionary action of the City Council; essentially the new
procedure would create a special zoning district for each PUD. It would also allow the City to
approve uses that may not otherwise be permitted on a project or parcel basis per Council
discretion. For example, a property zoned Business Park could be approved for a residential
mixed use development by PUD. The City Council will have the discretion to look at the project
and determine if it makes sense for the area. Staff anticipates bringing the PUD ordinance to
Planning Commission this fall.
Residential developments may make sense in certain areas along Belt Line Blvd and Hwy 7.
However, permitting residential developments within the entire BP district could create more
difficult challenges. It is important to limit or reduce certain uses in this area like heavy
manufacturing, outdoor storage and truck traffic. The Business Park zoning district actually
allows more uses than are currently permitted in the Industrial Park district. It allows the types
of uses that more accurately reflect where the market is going.
The city also recently received a grant from Met Council to pursue and consider a new type of
regulations in the LRT station areas called “form-based zoning.” This type of zoning is similar
to the design guidelines processes we have undertaken in various areas around the city where the
design is essentially laid out in advance of development and expectations are known. This type
of zoning allows more flexibility in uses, and as it is developed could overlay or replace the
Business Park zone. Residential uses would fit into this framework as well. The time frame for
developing this ordinance is 2013-14.
Process:
Following adoption of the new Business Park zoning district, 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.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 2
On November 7, 2012 a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission. The Commission
recommended approval with the exception of three properties, as noted below, 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.
Three property owners originally requested that they not be included in the rezoning and remain
as is, zoned Industrial Park or General Industrial. These are:
1. Mr. Ben Smith, Burch-Keats LLC, 5100 35th Street West
• American Tire (distribution)
2. Mr. Dick Nelson, Nelson Development Company, 3501 State Hwy 100
• Desq Office Solutions, Centerpoint Massage School
3. Mr. Don Kasbohm, DMD Properties LLC, 5725 State Hwy 7
• Former McGarvey Coffee site
The first two property owners listed had concerns about the needs of tenants who might wish to
expand the amount of warehousing done on-site. The Business Park District restricts
warehousing to no greater than 50% of the building; if the building is already over 50%, the
warehousing can continue indefinitely, but may not be expanded. This means that all the
existing uses in the properties to be rezoned may continue, but cannot expand under current state
law.
The third property owner purchased the McGarvey Coffee site intending to redevelop the site for
residential.
In June, 2013, 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. Staff
met with Mr. Smith and Mr. Saliterman and their correspondence is attached. Mr. Smith wishes
to keep his property zoned Industrial Park, and Mr. Saliterman would like to rezone his property
at Belt Line and CSAH 25 and not rezone his Diamond Hill property at CSAH 25 and Joppa.
Next Steps:
If the Council wishes to proceed on the rezoning of the properties, staff will schedule it on
September 16th for the 1st Reading.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 3
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
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 4
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 5
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 6
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 7
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 8
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 9
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 10
From:mark@salitermanltd.com
To:Meg McMonigal
Subject:RE: Business Park
Date:Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:25:42 PM
Meg,
VisionBank has 2 parcels and we would not oppose the rezoning. We would want to
make sure that the property to the east also has the same zoning. I was unclear
where the city was thinking of buying this property and maybe having a special
zoning for it to allow mixed use.
The two parcels called Diamond Hill Center and 3113 Lynn would oppose the
rezoning unless we can determine that your action will not decrease the value of our
property and its continued use as a warehouse until we tear it down. We want to
make sure we can continue to put in tenants that have minimal office with large
warehouse use. We are concerned with the ability to rebuild should a fire or natural
disaster occur. I am sure there are other items that we can discuss once you have
your study session.
I still believe that not allowing general retail, high density housing and restaurants is a
mistake.
I do understand your limited exceptions but I think that is not enough.
You need to provide these for a balanced neighborhood on this major roadway.
Thanks for listening
Mark
952-920-8555
mark@scpateam.com
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Business Park Rezoning Page 11
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and discuss Community Works Guiding Principles.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do draft Guiding Principles for SW LRT plan align with City
goals and direction?
SUMMARY:
Southwest Community Works Steering Committee and staff groups have been drafting a set of
“Guiding Principles” for the Steering Committee and cities to adopt.
The intent is to present a unified front for the corridor with a set of principles that will act as a
touchstone for guiding land use and economic development in and around station areas in a
transit-supportive manner.
The draft Guiding Principles are attached; the major categories are:
1. Partner to leverage resources and maximize investment.
2. Realize diverse, compact transit-oriented development (TOD) surrounding transit
facilities.
3. Accelerate 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.
Additional details are contained within the draft Principles and are presented for City Council
discussion.
NEXT STEPS: Over the coming weeks, the Community Works Steering Committee is
expected to finalize and adopt the Principles and forward them to the cities for adoption.
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: Draft SW Community Works Guiding Principles
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 2
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 3
• 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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4
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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5
• 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 August 26, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: July 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 of revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual
throughout the year. Please note that beginning in July the format of this report has changed to
reflect the reorganization of the former Park & Recreation and Public Works Departments.
According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the reorganization made it
necessary to consolidate the Park & Recreation Fund into the General Fund.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 58% of the annual budget in July. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling
56.3% of the adopted budget. 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.). A few brief comments on variances
are noted below.
Revenues:
• Through July, 82% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General
Fund. As in prior years, this is because over 99% of the 2013 liquor and business license
payments have been received. Building permit revenues are at 75.5% of budget or
$1,283,000 through July.
Expenditures:
• Human Resources is slightly exceeding budget in July at 59.1% due to recruiting
expenses.
• There are a few Operations & Recreation Divisions exceeding budget in July, including
Organized Recreation at 67.2%, Rec Center at 65%, and Park Maintenance at 60.2%.
These variances are temporary due to the seasonal nature of the activities in these
divisions, and are typical of the summer months when expenditures are higher. An
overage at end of year is not anticipated.
• The Vehicle Maintenance Division is also running a small overage through July at
59.7%. Due to continued plowing well into the spring and summer storm work, some
corresponding expenditures, such as overtime, fuel, and parts, are slightly over budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund
As of July 31, 2013
2013 2013
2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Jul YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 19,426,633$ 19,372,637$ 20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 10,804,834$ 9,852,890$ 52.30%
Licenses and Permits 2,352,510 2,797,698 2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 2,039,819 441,784 82.20%
Fines & Forfeits 328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 169,492 165,658 50.57%
Intergovernmental 1,213,839 1,452,030 1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 600,798 699,393 46.21%
Charges for Services 2,247,893 2,159,300 2,341,104 2,169,631 2,475,197 1,382,739 1,092,458 55.86%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,037,550 1,164,452 1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 502,773 589,608 46.03%
Transfers In 2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,043,883 772,680 57.46%
Investment Earnings 200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00%
Other Income 19,750 101,588 45,600 276,273 36,650 7,389 29,261 20.16%
Total General Fund Revenues 29,416,251$ 30,085,699$ 29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 30,345,459$ 16,551,727$ 13,793,732$ 54.54%
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 494,560$ 382,539$ 56.39%
Accounting 612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 657,592 385,284 272,308 58.59%
Assessing 500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 316,584 227,271 58.21%
Human Resources 652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 401,116 277,872 59.08%
Community Development 1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 630,621 463,896 57.62%
Facilities Maintenance 1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 550,759 524,161 51.24%
Information Resources 1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 902,282 868,595 50.95%
Communications & Marketing 294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 89,047 112,275 44.23%
Community Outreach 88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,421 3,764 54.01%
Engineering 846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 940,479 499,302 441,177 53.09%
Total General Government 7,487,653$ 7,203,238$ 7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,847,834$ 4,273,975$ 3,573,859$ 54.46%
Public Safety:
Police 7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 4,200,565$ 3,243,072$ 56.43%
Fire Protection 3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 1,826,381 1,503,882 54.84%
Inspectional Services 1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,114,179 814,267 57.78%
Total Public Safety 12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 7,141,124$ 5,561,222$ 56.22%
Operations & Recreation:
Public Works Administration 829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 199,598$ 193,456$ 50.78%
Public Works Operations 2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 1,482,045 1,216,825 54.91%
Organized Recreation 1,239,230 1,266,774 1,305,747 1,352,273 1,317,526 885,256 432,270 67.19%
Recreation Center 1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,463,224 950,392 512,832 64.95%
Park Maintenance 1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,483,576 892,688 590,888 60.17%
Westwood 502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 533,565 289,031 244,534 54.17%
Environment 371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 183,824 247,052 42.66%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,294,588 773,254 521,334 59.73%
Total Operations & Recreation 9,512,446$ 9,604,023$ 9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,615,279$ 5,656,089$ 3,959,190$ 58.82%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 26,905 153,095 14.95%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 26,905$ 153,095$ 14.95%
Total General Fund Expenditures 29,416,251$ 29,612,097$ 29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 30,345,459$ 17,098,093$ 13,247,366$ 56.34%
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: July 2013 Monthly Financial Report Page 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Highway 100 Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed at this time. Staff has provided an update
including information on the September 10th open house.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need any additional information at this time?
SUMMARY:
At the April 8, 2013, Study Session, Council was provided an update on the Highway 100
project and more specifically, the Visual Quality and Public Art process. Subsequently, on June
25, MnDOT conducted an Open House meeting and shared the Visual Quality and Public Art
process with the public. Although attendance was fairly light, several positive comments were
received. As a result, MnDOT is nearing completion of the Visual Quality manual which is
serving as a guide for incorporation of aesthetic elements into the project design, including
elements such as noise walls and bridges. The consultant contracted by the City to incorporate
public art into the project (Myklebust+Sears) is working closely with MnDOT design staff as
they continue to move forward with the construction plans.
As part of the construction plans, MnDOT has been developing construction staging plans.
Essentially, MnDOT will schedule and stage the project, including the replacement of bridges
(CP Rail, Highway 7, and Minnetonka Boulevard) in a manner that will mitigate the timing and
amount of road closures and traffic disruptions as much as possible. As proposed at this time,
the CP Rail bridge would be constructed late 2014 through early 2015, the Minnetonka
Boulevard bridge for essentially the remainder of 2015, and Highway 7 for the majority of 2016.
This construction will also be closely coordinated with other construction projects in the City,
including the Highway 7/Louisiana project which is expected to be substantially completed by
the time the Highway 100 work is underway. MnDOT also intends to hold an open house
informational meeting on September 10th from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at Groves Academy
located at 3200 Highway 100 South to explain the construction staging and construction
plans further.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As the City continues to work with MnDOT through final design, including visual quality and
public art considerations, the City’s share of the project will be calculated further, depending on
the level of improvements desired by the City. Other obligations of the City will include
relocation or replacement work of City utilities, and a share of traffic signal costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Staging Plans (1-5)
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Interim Director of Engineering
Reviewed by: Joseph Shamla, Engineering Project Manager
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 1
Title: Highway 100 Project Update
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Highway 100 Project Update
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Highway 100 Project Update
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Highway 100 Project Update
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Highway 100 Project Update
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Discussion Item: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. Please let staff know of any questions or comments you
might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is seeking a resolution of support
from the City of St. Louis Park for MCWD’s Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion Project. Staff
prepared a draft resolution (attached) that will be included on City Council’s September 3, 2013,
regular meeting agenda for action.
As detailed in a draft feasibility report, this project would divert stormwater that currently
discharges directly into Minnehaha Creek from an existing outfall to a planned stormwater pond
in Hopkins. The project includes construction of new storm sewer along Powell Road near Japs-
Olson Company and west across private properties to MCWD’s property at 325 Blake Road.
Over the last century, urbanization of the areas around Minnehaha Creek has degraded water
quality. Ditching of the stream channel, loss of wetlands, bridge crossings and increased
impervious surface have had a variety of negative effects on the ecological integrity of the creek.
Minnehaha Creek is listed as being impaired for chlorides, dissolved oxygen, and its fish
community and the downstream receiving waterbody, Lake Hiawatha, is impaired for excess
nutrients (phosphorus).
The Powell Road Diversion Project is one in a comprehensive series of projects MCWD is
undertaking to improve the quality and manage the quantity of stormwater runoff, enhance the
ecological integrity of the stream system, and facilitate broader community goals of economic
development and livability by allowing the restored stream system to be integrated into the
developed landscape.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: MCWD is not seeking financial
participation in the construction costs of the project. However, as the City works with MCWD
on the project design, it is possible the City could request enhancements that result in added costs
and possibly require City participation. Also, the City would be responsible for long term
maintenance of the new storm sewer infrastructure built in St. Louis Park. MCWD recommends
replacement/repair of the existing outfall, too, because it is scoured and damaged. These
obligations would need to be integrated into the City’s annual storm water maintenance program.
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: Resolution
Project Vicinity Map
Prepared by: Perry Edman, Water Resources Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Jack Sullivan, Interim Director of Engineering
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed
RESOLUTION NO. 13 - ___
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
POWELL ROAD STORM SEWER DIVERSION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is proposing regional
collection and treatment of stormwater to protect and enhance Minnehaha Creek at 325 Blake
Road in Hopkins, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project includes construction of storm sewer infrastructure in
St. Louis Park along Powell Road to divert stormwater from an area in St. Louis Park to the
proposed stormwater pond in Hopkins; and
WHEREAS, MCWD needs the consent of the City of St. Louis Park to move forward
with the project; and
WHEREAS, the project enhances the community and environment in St. Louis Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City supports the Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion project as
detailed in the draft feasibility report.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 3, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed
VICINITY MAP
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update Council on housing
programs and activity. This report is informational and no action is required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report including the Housing Matrix has
been presented to council since 2005. The Executive Summary provides a quick review of the
detailed report and the report provides historical trends, program descriptions, affordable housing
and additional information on housing programs in St. Louis Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Semi-Annual Housing Programs Activity Report 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to apprise City policy makers of housing program activity in the
first half of 2013. The report provides historical trends, program descriptions, and additional
information. Below are key points of 2013, with details following this summary.
1. Remodeling Activity
a. There were fewer housing rehab projects in 2013; however, the average cost per
alteration permit was $900 more than in 2012. Most projects were financed
without using city loans.
b. Use of the city’s Architect Design Services and Remodeling Advisor Services
remains steady in 2013.
c. 68 home energy visits were conducted through the new Home Energy Squad
Enhanced program which began March 2012.
d. Major remodeling projects and home additions were down in the first half of
2013.
e. Discount Loan use in 2013 is similar to that of 2012, but low compared to a five
year average. Our lender confirms that the use of these loans is low throughout
their service area.
2. Affordable Home Ownership and Public Housing Update
a. HIA loan used to preserve 326 modest valued condos/townhomes at Greensboro
Square and Westwood Villa is occurring. Seven HIAs have been established to
date. The loan period for Cedar Trails, the first HIA, is scheduled to end this year.
b. No homebuyers used the Live Where You Work program in the first half of 2013.
Thirteen homebuyers have used the program since it began in spring 2009.
c. One affordable ownership opportunity provided to a low income family in 2013
through Homes Within Reach. Ten homes purchased, rehabbed and sold to low
income families.
d. The SLP Housing Authority affordable rental housing and rental assistance
programs continue to have high occupancy and long waiting lists. Over 528
households received rental assistance the first half of 2013.
3. Housing Matrix
a. A net gain of 12 detached single family homes in St. Louis Park in 2013.
b. 365 multi-family apartment units were added in 2013 and an additional 58 units
are under construction at E2 (the Ellipse 2).
4. Foreclosures
a. The 2013 foreclosure rate continues to slow with 36 residential foreclosures the
first half of 2012 compared to 122 in 2012.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
1. REMODELING ACTIVITY
Residential permitted activity measures remodeling and maintenance activity; this section shows
historical trends of remodeling activity.
Permit Trends
• “Alteration Residential” or General Remodeling
The chart below shows the trend line of general remodeling activity over time. This work
includes projects with permit valuations less than $37,500 (the average value per job for the first
half of 2013 is approximately $7,900, an increase in $900 from 2012) and includes such items as:
o remodeling of bathrooms and kitchens;
o finishing of basement and attic spaces;
o conversion of existing spaces;
o window and door replacements, insulation; and
o drain tile, step, and foundation work.
The trend line below reflects residents’ willingness to preserve and update housing, the impact of
the city’s proactive housing improvement assistance, and the ongoing needs of older housing
stock. General remodeling activity to date matches permits for the first half of 2012.
Chart 1: Trend of Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Roofing and Siding Activity
Reroofing and residing permits are tracked separately. This chart illustrates the impact of storm
damage in 2008-9 and again in 2011. Almost 60% of the homes in the city had roofs replaced
between 2008 and 2011. It is likely the number of reroofs will be low for the next decade or so.
The first half of 2013 permits are similar to 2012. The six weeks following July 1st saw an
additional 17 residing permits and 49 reroofing permits. Although the late June storm resulted in
downed trees and power outages, fortunately there was not a lot of damage to homes.
471 517
785 797
971 869
1129 1011
468
0
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st
HalfNumber of Permits Issued Year
Maintenance & Minor Remodeling Permits
Alteration Residential (Minor)
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Chart 2: Reroofing and Residing Permits Since 2005
*Spike in reroofing due to 2008 storms.
• Additions and Major Remodeling
The number of Major Remodeling permits (valued at more than $37,500) remains on pace with
past years. If Additions continue at the current pace they will be down from previous years;
however, in 2012 we saw a significant increase in activity the second half of the year. The 2012
increase may be an indication that homeowners think that the housing market is entering the
early stages of recovery and recent homebuyers who purchased at the low end of the market who
are now investing in their homes.
Chart 3: Number of Addition and Major Remodeling Permits Since 2005
• Permit Valuation, 2005 – 2012
The valuation for single family remodeling activity for the first half of 2013 is on pace to match
2010 and 2012 permits. The following chart shows historical remodeling permit valuation for
additions, major remodels, remodeling and maintenance, garages/decks, reroofs, and siding.
Additional permits with additional valuations were issued for plumbing, heating, and electrical
202 216 355
845
201
761
140 44
85 66 84
573 332
117 117 73 35 0
500
1000
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st
HalfNumber of Permits Issued Year
Reroofing and Residing Permits
Reroof Reside
55
86
102
89
55
40
48
71
24 45 50 50 46 50
53
46 44 26
0
40
80
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st
HalfNumber of Permits Issued Year
Addition and Major Remodel Permit Activity
Addition Residential Major Remodels
4828*
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
work (not shown here). As the chart illustrates, permit valuation varies significantly from year to
year, but, with the exception of the “year of the hail damage repairs” (2008), valuation has
consistently ranged between $14 and $27 million.
Chart 4: Permitted Residential Remodeling Since 2005
City Housing Improvement Services, Loans Trends and Program Descriptions
• Home Improvement Services.
Use of the city’s architectural design service and remodeling advisor was consistent with the first
half of 2012. The home energy visits (Home Energy Squad Enhanced) are up slightly over the
first half of 2012; however, these visits did not start until March of 2012.
Chart 5: Technical, Design and Home Energy Visits Since 2005
• Home Remodeling Fair and Tour Trend
Both the Home Remodeling Fair and Tour continue to be popular events with residents. 200-400
residents visited each of the six tour homes and approximately 1,600 attended the Annual Fair.
$14
$15
$23
$68
$27
$17
$26
$17
$9
0
20
40
60
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st
HalfPermit Valuation - Million $ Year
Residential Remodeling Permit Valuation
68
102
62 48 32 30 29
29 17
221
157 179
130 126
89 82
69 49
122
68
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st
HalfNumber of Visits Year
Technical Home Improvement Services
Architect Services Remodeling Advisor Home Energy Visits
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
• City Loan and Rebate Trends
The following chart shows the number of Move Up Loans, Discount Loans and Energy Rebates
issued in recent years. The number of Discount Loans, nine, is down from previous years. CEE
notes that home improvement loan use is slow in their service area. The number of Move Up
loans is consistent with 2012. There was also a slight drop-off in use of the Energy Rebate
program.
Chart 6: Use of City Financial Incentives Since 2005
Summary of Move-Up Activity Loan and Service Costs Since 2005
Through 2011, for every dollar the City invested in move-up and discount loans, technical and
design services, rebate programs, and administrative costs, residents invested five dollars,
resulting in a 1:5 ratio of public to private investment. The 2012 ratio increased to 1:5.3.
The ratio of public to private investment increased the first half of 2013 – for every dollar the
city invested, residents invested roughly five dollars and fifty cents. The City invested
approximately $115,000 the first half of 2013 which leveraged $638,000 worth of private
investments. When factoring in the home energy loans through CEE the total private investment
increases to $676,000 with a ratio of 1:5.9. In 2013 approximately $38,000 in home energy loans
were closed through CEE although there is no city incentive or city cost to this program.
7
28 20 17 17 8 10 6 3
76
88
50 55 52
64
22 26
9
22
42
83
73
31
0
25
50
75
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1st
Half
2013Number Loans - Rebates Year
Loans and Rebates
Move up loans Discount loans Energy Rebates
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Table 1: Move-Up Participation and Costs Since 2005
Move-Up Participation and Costs
YEAR
Move-Up
Loans
Discount
Loans
Architectural
Design
Services
Remodeling
Advisor
Services
Remodeling
Tour
Green
Rebates
Home
Energy
Squad
Enhanced
Visits
Total
City Cost
2005 7 $182,806 76 $45,636 68 $15,300 221 $28,730 $272,472
2006 27 $591,264 88 $186,205 102 $22,950 157 $20,410 1 $5,000 $825,829
2007 27 $620,000 50 $74,000 62 $12,400 179 $23,270 1 $5,000 $734,670
2008 18 $330,937 55 $114,129 49 $11,025 130 $16,900 1 $5,000 $477,991
2009 17 $329,650 52 $106,000 12 $7,200 126 $16,380 1 $5,000 22 $4,092 $468,322
2010 9 $209,769 64 $86,263 30 $6,750 89 $11,510 1 $5,000 42 $7,820 $327,112
2011 10 $226,877 22 $29,213 29 $6,525 82 $10,250 1 $5,000 83 $15,465 $293,330
2012* 6 $106,232 26 $31,276 29 $6,525 69 $8,970 1 $5,505 73 $13,748 122 $7,320 $179,576
2013
1st
half 3 $68,640 8 $16,204 17 $3,825 49 $6,370 $9,291** 31 $6,344 68 $4,730 $115,404
*Other administrative costs, fees, and expenses totaled $6,256 in 2012.
**2013 Remodeling Tour & Home Remodeling Fair costs reflect the total costs from January 1 - June 30, 2013 including all
marketing, event preparation and event costs.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 8
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
2. AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANTS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UPDATE
Live Where You Work
The Live Where You Work Homebuyer Assistance Program began in spring 2009. The goal is to
promote home ownership within the City among employees of St. Louis Park businesses. The
city provides a deferred loan of $2,500 to an eligible employee and an additional $1,000 is
provided to employees purchasing vacant lender-owned foreclosed properties. Employers are
invited to contribute a matching or lesser amount to the City’s contribution. The deferred loan
will be forgiven after 3 years if the employee continues to work for the employer and meets other
qualification requirements. The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. No homebuyers
have used the program in 2013. Total participation to date is 13.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
The HIA is a finance tool to assist with the preservation of the city’s existing housing stock. An
HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the
improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area.
The Association borrows low interest money from the City, improvements are completed and
unit owners repay the loan through fees imposed on their properties and collected with property
tax payments.
The first HIA was established in 2002. To date, seven HIA’s have been established and over
twelve million dollars of improvements has been made to 1100 units. Greensboro Condos HIA
was established in 2011 and improvements totaling nearly $4,000,000 will be completed this
year. Westwood Villa Association HIA began construction in July, 2012, targeting $1,400,000
worth of improvements and they plan to be completed with their improvements this year.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Activity completed in the first half of 2013 was funded with 2012 CDBG funds. Approximately
$173,000 funded: rehab for SLP Housing Authority single family home, the single family low-
income homeowner’s emergency repair and loan programs, Homes within Reach, STEP’s roof
replacement, and Park & Rec Summer Youth Programming.
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, aka Homes Within Reach (HWR).
Homes Within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes
and sells them to low income homebuyers. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and lease
the land for 99 years. City funds are leveraged with Met Council and county HOME and AHIF
funds. Since the program began in 2007, ten homes have been sold to low income families, one
occurred in 2013. WHAHLT typically sells 1 or 2 homes each year in SLP and recently sold its
tenth home in February of 2013.
Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
The city has partnered with Habitat over the years to acquire nine blighted properties for rehab
or tear-down for new construction. In 2011 the city assisted Habitat with the purchase of one
property, construction was completed in the fall 2012 and the home was sold to a low income
family. No Habitat homes have been acquired in 2013.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 9
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
3. HOUSING MATRIX
The housing matrix shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of housing types, tenure
(owner or non-homesteaded), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family
homes. The matrix is a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached
matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and
Planning Commission.
2013 Highlights
• Multifamily residential building continued to increase the first half of 2013.
• There was a net gain of 12 single family homes.
• The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units is consistent with 2012. The
citywide ratio of homestead to non-homestead property currently stands at 56/44.
• The chart shows percentages of homesteaded residential units over time. In 2013,
91% of single family detached homes were owner occupied and 70% of
condos/townhomes were owner occupied. Owner occupancy in St. Louis Park is
consistent with 2012.
Chart 7: Percentage of Owner Occupied Units since 2006
• The May 2013 Maxfield Research Inc. Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis reports the
overall vacancy rate in St. Louis Park was 3.0% as of May 2013. The overall Metro Area
vacancy rate is also very low at 2.8%.
• Rental of duplexes remains strong and reflects a strong rental market – almost 70% of the
duplex units are currently rental.
Large Single Family Homes
One of the City’s housing goals is to increase the number of larger homes available in the city.
“Large single family homes” are being defined as exceeding 1,500 square feet of living space,
having 3 or more bedrooms, 2 or more baths, and at minimum a 2 car garage. According to SLP
Assessing Department, 2,087 – or 18% – of SLP single family homes meet this threshold.
97 97 96 93 93 93 91 91 91 92 89 89
80 75 70 70
0
50
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st HalfPercentage YEAR
% Owner Occupied (Homesteaded) Units
Single Family Detached Homes Condos & Townhomes
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 10
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Although this size home is not considered large when compared to newly constructed housing, it
is when compared to all SLP homes where 75% of single family homes have a foundation size
less than 1,200 square feet. 48% of single family homes have 1,200 square feet above ground.
Affordable Housing
Forty-five percent of the total city housing stock is considered affordable. The Met Council
revised the affordability guideline in 2011. The new affordable guideline is that housing is
affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of median area income ($49,400 for a
family of four) paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or
owning. The previous guideline was 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership.
Owner Occupied
• The 2013 affordable ownership purchase price is $177,500 or less.
• In 2013, 4710 owner occupied homes are considered affordable. The purchase price for
affordable home ownership increased $6,000 in 2013 and affordable homes increased by 595
homes.
Rental
• The 2013 affordable monthly rent including utilities for a 2 bedroom apartment for a
family of four is $1,111 at 60% MAI.
• There are an estimated 10,651 affordable rental units – including known subsidized units
and estimated market rate units.
• The estimated number of market rate affordable rental units is based on the SLPHA
Rental Study and the Maxfield Research Inc Study. The Maxfield Research study
surveyed apartment properties with 8 units and larger with an 84% participation rate. The
number of affordable single family detached, duplex, condos and townhome units is from
the SLPHA Rental Study. The overall response rate from the SLPHA Rental Study was
86.7%. Although the response rate was high this does not represent all rentals in the City.
Table 2: Comparison of Affordable Units from 2012 - 2013
2012
Guideline
2012
Numbers
2013
Guideline
2013
Numbers
Affordable Owner
Occupied Units
$171,500*
4,115 $177,500* 4,710 (20%
of total city
housing units)
Affordable Rental
Units (Estimated)
& Subsidized Units
$1,134**
5,318 $1,111**
5941 (25% of
total city
housing units)
Totals 9,433
40% of total
city housing
units
10,651
45% of total
city housing
units
*House Value
**Monthly rent of 2BR apartment and family of 4
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 11
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
St. Louis Park Housing Matrix
June 30, 2013
Housing Units by Type
Large Single Family Homes, Affordable, and Senior Housing
Housing
Type
Housing
Units
Net
Units
adde
d in
2013
Owner
Occupied
(Homestead
)
Non
Homesteade
d
and/or
Rental
Large
Single
Family
Homes
2013
Affordable
Market
Rate
Owner
Occupied
Units
2012
Reported
Affordable
Market
Rate
Rental
Units**
Public
Subsidized
Affordable
Units,
Includes
Section 8
Housing
Units
Senior
Designate
d
Single
Family
Detached 11628 48% 12 10631 997
2,087 2,861 58 55 0
Duplex 424 2% 0 142 282
82 0 0
Condos
and
townhomes 3388 14% 10 2329 1059
1,849 111 0 0
Apartments
* 8,245 35% 365 0 8,245
4,557 1,036 923
COOPs 114 <1% 0 114 0
42 106
Totals
23,79
9
100
% 606
13,21
6
56
% 10,583
44
%
2,08
7
9
%
4,71
0
20
%
4,80
8
20
%
1,13
3 5% 1,029 4%
The percentage of owner occupied (homesteaded) units to rental or non-owner occupied (non-homesteaded) units has shifted from the 60
homesteaded/40 non-homesteaded ratio of the early 2000's. This is due in part to a change in homestead status of approximately 1,200 units since
the early 2000s and the addition of new multi-family rental units.
In 2011 the Met Council revised the affordable housing income standard. Rather than using 50% MAI for rental and 80% MAI for ownership, the
new affordable definition is that housing is affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% MAI ($49,400 for a family of four in 2013) paying
thirty percent of their income for housing costs whether renting or owning. The 2012 affordable purchase price is $177,500 or less; a monthly rent of
$1,111 or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable.
*365 apartment units added in 2013. 58 additional units are under construction at the Ellipse 2.
**Reported Affordable Market Rate Rental Units based on 2012 SLPHA Rental Study and Maxfield Research Study.
Data source: SLP Community Development, Development Activity in St. Louis Park, SLP Inspections and Assessing.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 12
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
The City contracted with Maxfield Research Inc. to conduct a Comprehensive Housing Needs
Analysis for the City of St. Louis Park. The table below illustrates the naturally occurring
affordable multi-family market rate units for rental developments with 8 or more units in St.
Louis Park at various Area Median Household Income limits. The rent range for unit type and
family size is on the second table.
Table 2: Multi-family Market Rate Rental Developments Natural Occurring Summary
Unit Type 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
STUDIO --276 81 41 -- --
1 BR --1,347 1,014 441 329 172
2 BR --1,230 575 521 92 202
2 BR + DEN -- -- --5 -- --
3 BR --14 20 40 18 1
Total 2,867 1,690 1,048 439 375
Percentage
STUDIO --9.6% 4.8% 3.9%-- --
1 BR --47.0% 60.0% 42.1% 74.9% 45.9%
2 BR --42.9% 34.0% 49.7% 21.0% 53.9%
2 BR + DEN -- -- --0.5%-- --
3 BR --0.5% 1.2% 3.8% 4.1% 0.3%
Source: Maxfield Research Inc.
Market Rate Affordability by AMI
MAY 2013
ST. LOUIS PARK
MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
NATURAL OCCURRING SUMMARY
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 13
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Table 3: Monthly Rents Based on Maximum Household Size & AMI
Highlighted number indicates where the 4 person Area Median Income (AMI) limit falls in the chart.
Unit
Type Min Max Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.
Studio 1 1 $433 -$433 $735 -$735 $882 -$882 $1,152 -$1,152 $1,440 -$1,440 $1,728 -$1,728
1BR 1 2 $433 -$495 $735 -$840 $882 -$1,008 $1,152 -$1,316 $1,440 -$1,645 $1,728 -$1,974
2BR 2 4 $495 -$618 $840 -$1,050 $1,008 -$1,260 $1,316 -$1,646 $1,645 -$2,058 $1,974 -$2,469
3BR 3 6 $556 -$718 $945 -$1,219 $1,134 -$1,463 $1,482 -$1,910 $1,853 -$2,388 $2,223 -$2,865
4BR 4 8 $618 -$816 $1,050 -$1,386 $1,260 -$1,664 $1,646 -$2,172 $2,058 -$2,715 $2,469 -$3,258
Sources: HUD, MHFA, Maxfield Research Inc.
Income Limits by Household Size
Studio 1 1 $17,300 $17,300 $29,400 $29,400 $35,280 $35,280 $46,080 $46,080 $57,600 $57,600 $69,120 $69,120
1BR 1 2 $17,300 $19,800 $29,400 $33,600 $35,280 $40,320 $46,080 $52,640 $57,600 $65,800 $69,120 $78,960
2BR 2 4 $19,800 $24,700 $33,600 $42,000 $40,320 $50,400 $52,640 $65,840 $65,800 $82,300 $78,960 $98,760
3BR 3 6 $22,250 $28,700 $37,800 $48,750 $45,360 $58,500 $59,280 $76,400 $74,100 $95,500 $88,920 $114,600
4BR 4 8 $24,700 $32,650 $42,000 $55,450 $50,400 $66,540 $65,840 $86,880 $82,300 $108,600 $98,760 $130,320
120%
1 One-bedroom plus den and two-bedroom plus den units are classified as 1BR and 2BR units, respectively. To be classified as a bedroom,
a den must have a window and closet.
Note: 4-person Hennepin County AMI is $82,300 (2013)
MONTHLY RENTS BASED ON MAXIMUM HOUSEHOLD SIZE & AMI
HENNEPIN COUNTY - 2013
Max. Rent Based on Household Size (@30% of Income)
HHD Size 30%50%60%80%100%
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 14
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
4. RELATED ISSUES
Foreclosures
Foreclosures are measured by the number of sheriff sales. The number of residential foreclosures
dropped the first half of 2013 to 36 sales. This continues the downward trend and matches the
metro area trend of fewer foreclosures. The chart below shows foreclosures since tracking began
in 2006.
Chart 8: St. Louis Park Residential Foreclosures by Year, 2006 – 1st half of 2013
Along with an overall slowing of residential foreclosures, the pace of condominium
foreclosures has also slowed as noted in the trend chart below which shows foreclosure by
housing type over time.
Chart 9: Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
76 87
133
92
191
163
122
36
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st HalfNumber of Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Year
56
78
93
63
106 109
82
28 20 9
30 27
54
40 30
5 0 0 10 2
31
8
10 3 0
40
80
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st HalfNumber Sherrif Sales Year
Residential Foreclosures by Housing Type
Single Family Detached Condos Townhome & DB
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 15
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Property Work Group
The City’s Property Watch Team, developed in 2006, monitors foreclosure activity and problem
properties. Staff from all departments track, monitor and respond to issues related to problem
foreclosed homes. The goal of this effort is to ensure that vacant, foreclosed homes do not
become “problem properties.” The Inspections Department follows-up with vacant foreclosed
properties through the Property Maintenance Inspection process and works with bankers,
investors and the managing companies. In addition to the City’s concerted efforts, bankers and
lenders have become far more proactive in ensuring their investments are maintained.
The city continues to promote the foreclosure prevention services provided by Community
Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin County and Home Ownership Center through direct
mailings, Park Perspective, City’s social media, and staff referrals.
Louisiana Court Update
PPL/Louisiana Court is continuing to maintain close to 100% occupancy. Metro Plains
Management Company assumed property management of PPL’s Louisiana Court complex in
June 2011 and was able to obtain 100% occupancy within a few months. Metro Plains has
continued to meet weekly with the Community Liaison Officer to review police calls related to
tenant disturbances or criminal activity in or around the complex. The Oversight Committee that
includes representatives from the County, MHFA, PPL, Metro Plains, the City and the tax credit
syndicator meet twice a year to review the operational status of the development including
implementations of capital improvements.
Due to the continuing high occupancy at the development, use of the Shallow Rent Subsidy
Program has not been necessary.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 16
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
5. ST. LOUIS PARK HUD FEDERALLY FUNDED HOUSING PROGRAMS: UPDATE
The Housing Authority administers programs that ensure the availability of safe and desirable
housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include the Public Housing
program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program, Shelter Plus Care rental
assistance program, Louisiana Court Max 200 Rental Assistance Program, and TRAILS family
self-sufficiency program. The Authority currently serves over 500 eligible, low-income
households through their housing programs.
Public Housing
The HA owns a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2 two-bedroom
caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5 bedrooms)
acquired and constructed between 1974 and 1996. Although the low-rise building is designated
for general occupancy, priority is given to elderly and disabled. The single-family scattered units
house families with children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC)
and maintains a waiting list for 12 two-bedroom Public Housing apartment units located at
Louisiana Court. These units are owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. The units
and occupancy rates for the Public Housing units are noted in the table.
Public Housing Total
Units
1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy
June 30,
2013
Hamilton House 108 108 99%
Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 98%
Louisiana Court,
Metropolitan Housing
Opportunity (MHOP) Units
12
12
99%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The HA is funded to administer up to 268 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The rent
assistance program provides rent subsidies for low-income individuals and families in privately
owned, existing market rate housing units. The rent subsidy is paid directly to the owner of the
rental property by the HA with funds provided by HUD. The HA offers both tenant-based and
project-based vouchers. Forty vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated for use in three
privately owned developments (Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place, and Wayside) and are referred to
as project-based vouchers.
Shelter Plus Care (Permanent Rental Assistance)
The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive services for
hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill
or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both) and their families. Grants are provided to
be used for permanent housing which must be matched with supportive services that are equal in
value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of population to be served.
St. Louis Park is the grant recipient and we partner with three sponsor organizations that
administer supportive housing programs. The Housing Authority administers 43 units of Shelter
Plus Care assistance.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 17
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
(HUD Approved)
Units Utilization YTD
June 30, 2013
Tenant-Based (56 are Port-Outs) 203 89%*
Tenant-Based Port - Ins 47 Avg./month
Project-Based: 39
Wayside Supportive Housing 15 100%
Excelsior & Grand 18 100%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 43
Perspectives Inc. 11 100%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) –
Scattered Site Homes
11
73%
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 86%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 105%
**Wayside Supportive Housing 5 97%
Total 371
* Due to sequestration and other budget constraints the Housing Authority can only financially
support 89% of the HUD allocation for vouchers.
**Beginning in 2012, CIP and Perspective grants provide funding for up to five units of Shelter
Plus Care Rental Assistance at Wayside House. Wayside House’s Project Based units were
decreased by five units to fifteen.
Waiting Lists
Assisted Housing Waiting List as of June 30, 2013
Public
Housing
1-BR 1-BR
Handicap
2-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Handicap
4-BR 5-BR Total
841 61 332 236 4 136 47 1657
Section 8 451
Excelsior &
Grand
64
MAX 200 80
2252
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 18
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
6. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Technical, Design, and Conservation Services
Architectural Design Service
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the MN
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. All homeowners considering renovations are
eligible for this service regardless of income; however, to ensure committed participants,
residents make a $25 co-pay.
Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys
indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City
contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit
Home Energy Squad Enhanced program is a comprehensive residential energy program designed
to help residents save money and energy and stay comfortable in their homes. The cost per
resident was decreased to $50 per enhanced visit in 2013. The home energy squad consultant
evaluates energy saving opportunities and installs the energy-efficiency materials the homeowner
choses including: door weather stripping, water heater blanket, programmable thermostat,
compact fluorescent light bulbs, high efficiency shower heads and faucet aerators. They will also
perform diagnostic tests including a blower door test to measure the home for air leaks, complete
an insulation inspection, safety check the home’s heating system and water heater and help with
next steps such as finding insulation contractors. All single family and duplex homeowners are
eligible. Renters qualify for the installed visit ($30) without diagnostic tests. The Home Energy
Squad Enhanced visits qualified residents for CEE’s low interest financing and utility rebates
and they also notify residents of the city loan and rebate opportunities.
The program which began in March, 2012, is administered by the Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE). The city pays $70 per resident visit which is leveraged with funds from
Xcel Energy, Center Point Energy and CEE.
Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and
Golden Valley co-sponsor the annual home remodeling fair. The fair provides residents an
opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home
improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is a self-sustaining
event and vendor registration fees cover the costs.
Home Remodeling Tour
The annual tour is designed to meet the housing goal to remodel and expand single family owner
occupied homes. The self-guided tour of six homes provides a showcase of a variety of home
remodeling projects to provide ideas, information, and inspiration to other residents considering
remodeling.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 19
Title: 2013 Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report
Financial Programs
Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) home improvement loans. Residents
with incomes of $67,200 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of
$96,500 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the
exception of luxury items such as pools and spas.
The City contracts with CEE for loan administration. Implementation of discounting of MHFA
loans began in late 1999 as a pilot project. The City is now second among all Minnesota cities to
use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis.
Move – Up Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area
income ($98,750 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred
loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost, with a maximum loan of $25,000.
The revolving loan pool will continue to fund future expansions – one $12,005 loan was repaid
in 2013.
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the
project to selecting contractors. Loan guidelines are:
• Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must
exceed $35,000.
• The maximum loan amount is $25,000.
• The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower which covers
the lender’s administrative fee.
Green Remodeling Program & Energy Rebates
The Green Remodeling Program includes the Home Energy Squad Enhanced home visit
program, use of energy rebates, and access to CEE’s Home Energy Loan. The city provides a
match of 50% of gas and electric utility rebates for energy efficient furnaces, water heaters, air
conditioners and qualifying air sealing and insulation. The average rebate in 2013 was $205, an
increase of $17 from 2012, for a total City cost of $6,344. In 2013, CEE provided five low
interest loans to residents making qualifying energy improvements. This energy improvement
loan has no income restrictions and there is no cost to the City.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: The West End AUAR Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to update
Council on the West End AUAR
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council need any additional information?
SUMMARY: An environmental analysis for The West End was adopted by the City of St.
Louis Park in 2007. The type of analysis used was an Alternative Urban Area-wide Review
(AUAR). The AUAR is due for an update because it is over five years old and all phases of the
development have not been built. The City of St. Louis Park is the responsible governmental
unit (RGU) for the AUAR.
The City hired Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to complete the AUAR update. A
memorandum summarizing the preliminary findings is attached. The memorandum focuses on
the three areas that were identified as potential limiting factors for development under the
original AUAR, including sanitary sewer use, water use, and traffic. The analysis used the latest
information on existing conditions. The analysis also explored two modified scenarios for
remaining phases of development at The West End, including potential future redevelopment of
the Chili’s and Olive Garden sites to multiple-family residential use.
The preliminary analysis finds that sanitary sewer is not a limiting factor for the development. It
also finds that the capacity to handle the projected water use has improved slightly since the
original study, and that traffic will still operate acceptably and similarly to the original AUAR.
Ongoing monitoring of both water use and traffic is recommended as each phase develops.
NEXT STEPS: City staff intends to request City Council authorization to distribute the AUAR
report on the September 3, 2013, City Council Consent Agenda. The complete AUAR update
will be attached to that staff report. The AUAR needs to be published in the State’s EQB
Monitor and distributed to neighboring jurisdictions. A 10-day comment period is required.
Following the comment period, staff intends to present the full report, comments, and formal
responses to City Council. At the end of the process, the City Council will be asked to formally
adopt the updated AUAR.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Duke Realty provided an
escrow to the City of St. Louis Park to pay for all the costs of the AUAR update.
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: Memorandum from Kimley-Horn and Associates
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Memorandum
Date: August 21, 2013
To: Sean Walther, City of St. Louis Park
From: Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (651-643-0437)
Subject: Analysis results for West End AUAR Update – for City Council
PURPOSE OF MEMO
This memo captures preliminary results of sanitary sewer, water use, and traffic analyses for the
purposes of updating the AUAR completed in 2007 for the West End development. Analyses were
compared to the 2007 AUAR, specifically:
2007 AUAR Scenario 1:
• 1.0 million SF of office space
• 400,000 SF of retail space
• 250 condo units
The AUAR studied multiple scenarios with varying levels and types of development, but Scenario 1
most closely represents the actual plans for the site, and has been consistently used as a comparison in
other analyses. Since 2007, some of the planned development has changed slightly. Most notably,
planned condos were replaced with apartment units (The Flats at West End). Therefore “existing
conditions” includes current restaurant, retail, grocery, theater, 2nd story office, and 120 apartment
units. In addition, the Novartis/Nestle facility was removed from the city’s system in April 2013. This
facility used approximately 8 percent of the city’s water capacity, so its removal reduces existing
demand on the system. This adjustment was made to the baseline condition for purposes of this
analysis.
Incorporating these existing conditions, updated analyses were completed for the following scenarios
(as confirmed by Duke Realty):
Revised Scenario 1A:
• Existing conditions
• Replace Chilis and Olive Garden sites with residential use (334 apartment units)
• 1.1 million SF of office space
• Add 8,543 SF of restaurant use
Revised Scenario 1B:
• Existing conditions
• Replace Chilis and Olive Garden sites with residential use (334 apartment units)
• 1.1 million SF of office space
• Add 8,543 SF of restaurant use
• Add 250 more apartment units
Suite 238N
2550 University Avenue West
St. Paul, Minnesota
55114
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 2
SANITARY SEWER
Sanitary sewer use is not anticipated to be a limiting factor to development. With the removal of the
Novartis/Nestle facility, the baseline condition has been adjusted and sanitary use generated by the
full buildout of the development falls beneath the thresholds identified in the AUAR, and within the
available capacity of the current MCES interceptor (7.4 MGD). See Table 1. Metropolitan Council is
also in the process of designing improvements to the current sanitary sewer system that are
anticipated to increase system capacity by 5 MGD. Construction is anticipated to be complete by
December of 2014.
Table 1. Net Sanitary Peak Flow
2007 AUAR
Scenario 1*
Revised Scenario
1A**
Revised Scenario
1B**
Existing Average Daily Flow (MGD)2.6 2.6 2.6
Average Daily Flow Increase (MGD)***0.269 0.407 0.475
Average Daily Flow Decrease (MGD)0.044 0.506 0.506
Net Average Daily Flow Adjustment (MGD)0.225 -0.099 -0.031
Total Average Daily Flow
(Existing + Net Flow Adjustment) (MGD)2.825 2.501 2.569
Peak Hourly Flow (2.7 Peak Factor) (MGD)7.628 6.753 6.936
Peak Hourly Flow (2.37 Peak Factor) (MGD)6.695 5.927 6.089
*Decrease includes the Demolition of Existing
buildings from 2007 AUAR.
*** Increase is adjusted based on future demolition
of Chili's and Olive Garden
**Decrease Includes the Demolition of Existing buildings from
2007 AUAR and the closing of the Nestle factory. Nestle flow
decrease estimated to be 95% of Nestle Water Use information
provided by the City, to account for Irrigation and Infiltration.
WATER USE
Water use will remain a limiting factor for both Scenario 1A and Scenario 1B. At estimated 91 and 92
percent use of the system, respectively, both scenarios are less than what was identified in the original
AUAR. However, as stated in the original AUAR, it is the city’s desire to remain under a 90 percent
threshold. To remain within 90 percent capacity, additional mitigation measures or adjustments would
be necessary under either scenario.
Table 2. Water Use Summary
2007 AUAR
Scenario 1
Revised Scenario
1A*
Revised Scenario
1B*
Total Firm System Capacity (MGD)13.32 13.32 13.32
City Firm Peak Usage (MGD)11.880 10.920 10.920
Capacity Available (MGD)1.436 2.400 2.400
Proposed Project Usage (MGD)0.638 1.153 1.347
Total City Usage (MGD)12.518 12.073 12.267
Capacity Available (post-construction) (MGD)0.802 1.247 1.053
Percent Total System Utilitized 93.98% 90.64%92.09%
*City Peak Usage Adjusted for removal of Nestle
Factory
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 3
TRAFFIC
Traffic would not be a limiting factor under Scenarios 1A or 1B (see tables on next page), although
under Scenario 1B, trips are very close to the AUAR thresholds for the AM peak. No additional
mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated, but traffic should be monitored if full buildout
under Scenario 1B occurs.
Table 3. Traffic Summary – Scenario 1A
In Out In Out
Office 1,100,000 square
feet 8,310 1169 159 224 1094
Retail (2 Restaurants
Removed)345,897 square
feet 14,830 217 139 623 674
Added Retail
(Restaurant)8,543 square
feet 366 5 3 15 17
Condos 0 Units 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments 454 Units 3,019 45 182 176 95
Trip Generation Subtotal 26,525 1,436 483 1,038 1,880
Multi-Use Reduction (-10%)-2,653 -144 -48 -104 -188
TOTAL 23,872 1,292 435 934 1,692
Percent Increase 0% 10% 23% 3% 3%
AUAR Trip Generation Limits 1,320 528 1,167 1,883
Land Use Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDaily Trips
Table 4. Traffic Summary – Scenario 1B
In Out In Out
Office 1,100,000 square
feet 8,310 1169 159 224 1094
Retail 345,897 square
feet 14,830 217 139 623 674
Added Retail
(Restaurant)8,543 square
feet 366 5 3 15 17
Condos 0 Units 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments 454 Units 3,019 45 182 176 95
Added Apartments 250 Units 1,663 25 100 97 52
Trip Generation Subtotal 28,188 1,461 583 1,135 1,932
Multi-Use Reduction (-10%)-2,819 -146 -58 -114 -193
TOTAL 25,369 1,315 525 1,021 1,739
Percent Increase 7% 12% 49% 12% 6%
2007 AUAR Trip Generation Limits 1,320 528 1,167 1,883
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourLand Use Size
1 Trip generation calculations as documented in the West End AUAR, based on
ITE Trip Generation, 7 th Edition (2003).
2 Trip generation calculations based on the most recent version of ITE Trip Generation, 9 th Edition (2012).
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 4
SUMMARY
The West End development will exceed the original AUAR estimates for sewage flow and water
demand, however with the removal of the Novartis/Nestle facility, the existing infrastructure is
capable of supporting the increased sanitary sewer demand created by the development under both
Scenarios 1A and 1B.
Water use is anticipated to be under the 2007 AUAR thresholds for both Scenarios 1A and 1B.
However, both scenarios are above the city’s preferred 90 percent total system use. Additional
mitigation measures or adjustments would be required.
Traffic generated by both Scenarios 1A and 1B can be accommodated within the limits established in
the original AUAR; however Scenario 1B is very close to reaching thresholds in the AM peak. No
additional mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated at this time, but traffic should be
monitored if full buildout under Scenario 1B is implemented.
Study Session Meeting of August 26, 2013 (Item No. 9)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Open to Business Program Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This report provides an update on the Open to Business
program which provides small business technical assistance services to St. Louis Park businesses
and residents.
SUMMARY: Under its contract with the EDA, the Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers (MCCD) is required to provide periodic updates detailing the small business
technical services provided in St. Louis Park under its Open to Business program. The last
update provided information on the program for activities during 2012. This latest update covers
activities from January to June 2013.
Through the first six months of this year MCCD staff has met with 26 would-be entrepreneurs
and small business people seeking assistance with a wide variety of business ventures. During
that period MCCD has provided 82 hours of service in the city. These services have included
business entity advice, business plan development, loan packaging, feasibility analysis, lease
review, strategic planning, employee relations, cash flow analysis, network referrals,
bookkeeping assistance and real estate advice. The “Test Drive Your Business Idea” counseling
sessions continue to experience increasing activity and are expected to accelerate as word of the
program continues to spread.
The Open to Business program is developing a successful track record. During the first half of
2013 the Open to Business program provided a $12,000 loan for a St. Louis Park guitar shop to
increase inventory, helped a retail collective reorganize its business structure; assisted a local
entrepreneur in evaluating a new restaurant space; connected a resident entrepreneur with a
manufacturing company to discuss a partnership; and is currently working with a resident who
wants to open a micro-brewery.
Counseling sessions occur the fourth Monday of each month from 9 a.m.to 11 a.m. at City Hall
or by appointment at the place of business. There is no charge to those receiving these services.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Planning & Economic Development Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy Executive Director and Deputy City Manager