HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/08/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
AUGUST 12, 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 – August 19 & August 26, 2013
2. 6:35 p.m. Discussion with XCEL Energy Representatives
3. 7:20 p.m. Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants
4. 7:50 p.m. Knollwood Development Proposal Update
5. 8:35 p.m. Southwest LRT (Verbal Report)
8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:55 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. Project Update - Sanitary Sewer Project (MCES Hopkins Interceptor Rehabilitation)
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 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 19 & August 26, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session scheduled for August 19, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on August 26, 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 Special Study Session scheduled for August 19, 2013 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on August 26, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 19 & 26, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 19 & August 26, 2013
Special Study Session, August 19, 2013 –6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. 2014 Budget Discussion – Accounting (50 minutes)
Discussion on the 2014 Budget, Tax Levies, Utility Rates and any changes Council would
like incorporated.
2. Mayor, City Council & Economic Development Authority Compensation – Administrative
Services (10 minutes)
Study Session, August 26, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
(Mayor Jacobs Out?)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Park Shelter Restrooms – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes)
City Council directed this topic be placed on a study session agenda to discuss the policy and
practice of when permanent restroom facilities in City parks are open for use by the public.
3. Deer Management Update – Operations & Recreation (45minutes)
Staff will review the current Deer Management Policy with Council.
4. Update on SWLRT Project – Community Development (30 minutes)
Time is being set aside to allow the City Council and staff to discuss any recent
developments regarding this project.
5. Zoning Map Amendment Business Park District – Community Development (15 minutes)
City Staff has been working with property owners on applying the Business Park zone on 57
properties. Some property owners desire the change and some do not at this time. Staff has
been working with property owners and would like to discuss this with Council before the 1st
Reading of the rezonings.
6. West End AUAR Update – Community Development (15 minutes)
The environmental review (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR)) for the West End
development was completed five years ago and is due for an update. The City is the
responsible governmental unit (RGU) for the AUAR update. City Council will be asked at a
future meeting to authorize publication of the AUAR report and, following a comment
period, to adopt the Final AUAR Update Report.
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: 8:55 pm
Reports
7. 2013 June Financial Report
8. Highway 100 Project Update
9. Powell Road Storm Sewer Diversion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed
10. Housing Activity Report
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Discussion with XCEL Energy Representatives
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required at this time. This study session
discussion relates to discussing power outages related to the June 21/22 storm events and an
update on the renewal of the franchise agreement.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: No formal policy issues at this time.
SUMMARY: As a result of the significant power outages from storms on June 21/22, the City
Council requested that XCEL Energy representatives attend a study session to discuss this issue.
XCEL reps will provide a presentation on details of the storm event and the recovery efforts
undertaken by them.
Given that XCEL’s franchise agreement is expiring later this year, staff would also like to take
the opportunity to brief the Council on where things stand on this issue as well.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. This is an opportunity for City Council to
learn more about the proposal and provide comments before it comes to City Council for formal
consideration.
SUMMARY: The owner of The Shops at West End, AD West End LLC, proposes to add more
restaurants to the tenant mix than the original 2008 City approval anticipated.
The PUD currently allows the shopping center to have up to 82,277 square feet of restaurants.
The request is to increase the maximum gross building area of restaurants by 8,543 square feet to
a total of up to 90,820 square feet. The current restaurant tenants, plus some pending leases, will
bring the shopping center very near the current limit.
In 2008, City staff recommended including a condition of approval limiting the area of
restaurants. Restaurants, especially those with wait-staff, generally require more parking than
retail uses. The Shops at West End relies upon shared use of the neighboring office parking
ramps to meet its parking requirements. A Walker Parking Consultants shared parking study for
the proposed shopping center considered a tenant mix that included up to 82,277 square feet of
restaurants. Therefore, City staff was not comfortable recommending approval of more
restaurant area than that without additional study.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on July 17, 2013, and
recommended approval of the amendment.
Mr. Pat Mascia, Senior Vice President for Duke Realty, plans to attend the meeting to discuss the
application with City Council and answers questions of the City Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Shared Parking Report (May 2013)
Shops at West End Tenant Mix
Shops at West End Lease Plan
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
The West End is a walkable, mixed-use, urban redevelopment. It includes a mix of office
buildings, shopping center, and multiple-family residential. Up to four more office buildings
(The Towers at West End) totaling approximately 1,100,000 square feet are planned. Additional
residential development is also anticipated.
The Shops at West End is a 382,070-square foot shopping center within the West End
development and includes grocery, movie theater, restaurant, retail, service, and office uses.
The City approved a PUD modification to lower the parking requirement for the shopping center
based on the mix of land uses and shared parking opportunities in the development. City staff
reviewed the peak hours and characteristics of the parking demand of the various uses (Parking
Generation 3rd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004). Also, the developer
commissioned Walker Parking Consultants to study this issue, both in 2007 and again in 2013.
The 2007 study considered a tenant mix that included a combination of fast food and fine/casual
restaurants that totaled 82,277 square feet. Based on Walker Parking Consultants report in 2007,
the City decided to limit the floor area of restaurants to the amount studied as a condition of PUD
approval. At the time, this was consistent with the shopping center leasing plan.
The shopping center has developed closely to the original leasing plan. The Shops at West End
has been operating successfully for four years and is presently 80% leased. There are a few
“shell” building spaces still available. The current restaurant tenants, plus some pending leases,
will bring the shopping center very near the current limit of 82,277 square feet. Strong interest
from additional restaurant and entertainment tenants is driving the request to allow more
restaurants.
Walker Parking Consultants completed a new shared parking report (attached) in May, 2013 that
evaluated two different tenant mix scenarios, including the restaurant floor areas proposed in this
application.
The study used conservative assumptions and essentially concludes that during normal
operations (51 weeks out of the year) the parking supply is both sufficient and convenient
enough for patrons. It isn’t until the last week of December that the parking supply could be
exhausted during the peak weekday daytime hours. During this week, the study indicated a
potential shortage of up to 11 parking stalls in the peak weekday hours.
From a parking perspective, staff finds the potential shortage to be limited in duration,
manageable, and avoidable if the shopping center actively controls employee parking during the
Christmas rush. In addition, the overall West End development already has an approved Travel
Demand Management Plan and can implement the plan to help avoid and mitigate potential
parking shortages and traffic impacts.
NEXT STEPS: This item is scheduled for formal City Council consideration on August 19,
2013.
j:\18-1124-02-shops at west end-update 2013\reports\20130509 shared parking report 1.1.docx
9 May 2013
Gary Gleason, PE
VP Construction
Duke Realty
1600 Utica Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Re: West End Retail Project
Walker Project #18-1124.02
Dear Mr. Gleason,
Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present the results of our shared parking
analysis of the proposed West End Retail project.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
A.D. West, LLC has developed The Shops at West End, a mixed-use development
located just south of Wayzata Boulevard and east of Park Place Boulevard in St. Louis
Park. The project was designed to take advantage of shared parking opportunities,
both within the development and with an adjacent office property.
Currently, the development has 330,594 sf leased, and has the potential to add to its
tenant roster. Two scenarios are under consideration – one a major retailer, the other
an active entertainment venue with a bowling alley. The summary of current land uses
and future options is shown in Table 1.
Walker Parking Consultants
50 West 23rd Street, Suite 704
New York, NY 10010
Voice: 212.288.2501
Fax: 212.288.2542
www.walkerparking.com
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 3
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 2
Table 1: Land Use Summary
Source: Duke Realty, 2013
Walker has been working with Duke Realty since the project was planned, to help size
the parking. Using shared parking methodology, the goal of the initial study and
subsequent updates as the project has developed, has been to build the parking
system to match the needs of the development. Overbuilding parking just for the sake
of always having ample parking is very costly, and comes at the expense of other
potential land uses that make the development more appealing as a destination. On
the other hand, underbuilding the parking discourages customers and potential
tenants.
SHARED PARKING OVERVIEW
Shared-use parking is a concept in which land uses in close proximity share a pool of
available spaces in order to reduce the overall parking needs for the development.
The concept works well in situations where parking demand for different uses peaks at
different times of the day. For example, an office and a cinema can share parking
effectively because an office will experience peak demand during the day on
weekdays, while a cinema will experience peak demand in the evening on a
weekend. It is therefore not necessary to build the full supply needed for the office plus
the full supply for the cinema if these two land uses are close enough together that they
can reasonably share a common supply. In shared parking, the whole is less than the
sum of its parts.
In addition to the reduction in inventory that is possible when different land uses have
different peak hours of utilization, mixed-use developments may experience a
reduction in demand due to captive effects. A captive market occurs when a user
group has already parked in an area for a long period and then patronizes nearby
commercial establishments without generating new car trips or parking demand. For
example, a restaurant in close proximity to a large office building may be very busy at
Retail 93,184 sf 61,304 sf 8,304 sf
Fine dining(1)72,392 sf 8,110 sf 8,110 sf (1) "Existing" includes 2,250 sf within Comedy Club.
Fast food 7,834 sf 2,484 sf 2,484 sf
Theatre(2)59,500 sf (2) 2,700-seat cinema.
Grocery 55,288 sf
Office 35,396 sf
Specialty(3)7,000 sf 32,578 sf
Total 330,594 sf 71,898 sf 51,476 sf
Notes
(3) Existing 7,000 sf is comedy club, exclusive of
dining portion. In Scenario B, the added 32,578 sf is
an active entertainment venue with a bowling
alley.
Existing
Retail Tenant
Proposed Future Additions
Active Entertainment
Tenant
Scenario BScenario A
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 4
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 3
lunch, but is unlikely to generate nearly as many cars as a stand-alone restaurant
because much of its business will come from the “captive” market of people who work
in the office building and are already parked on site for the day. The effects of a
captive market vary greatly, depending on the size of the market, the type of
commercial space, and the characteristics of surrounding land uses.
THE SHARED PARKING MODEL
Walker’s Shared Parking Model is based on the Urban Land Institute and International
Council of Shopping Center’s Shared Parking1 publication. Walker led a team of
consultants in writing the updated Shared Parking Second Edition, which was published
in November of 2005, and features the most up-to-date parking demand model. The
model is designed to project the parking needs of a mixed-use development from 6:00
a.m. to 12:00 midnight on a typical weekday and a Saturday for every month of the
year.
BASE PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
Base parking demand ratios, as found in the ULI Shared Parking model and in some
cases refined through additional research by Walker, are used as a starting point in the
modeling process. Based on industry research, the ratios reflect the peak parking
demand for a particular kind of land use in the absence of shared use opportunities
and/or transit-use reductions. These adjustments are made subsequently, on a site-
specific basis. Table 2 shows the base ratios for visitors and employees for a weekday
and weekend.
Table 2: Base Parking Demand Ratios
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
The base ratios are tailored to site conditions by applying driving ratios, non-captive
factors, and presence factors.
DRIVING RATIO ADJUSTMENT
Adjustments are made to account for the number of patrons who arrive at the subject
property by means other than personal vehicle. We assume all visitors will drive to the
1 Shared Parking Second Edition, 2005, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.
Land Use Unit Total
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee Weekday Weekend
Retail 2.90 0.70 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLA 3.60 4.00
Fine/Casual Dining 15.25 2.75 17.00 3.00 /ksf GLA 18.00 20.00
Fast Food/QSR 12.75 2.25 12.00 2.00 /ksf GLA 15.00 14.00
Nightclubs 15.25 1.25 17.50 1.25 /ksf GLA 16.50 18.75
Active Entertainment - painting studio 4.20 0.40 6.50 0.50 /ksf GLA 4.60 7.00
Theater 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seat 0.20 0.27
Office 25k to 100k sq ft 0.25 3.15 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFA 3.40 0.38
Specialty Grocer 3.00 0.50 3.25 0.50 /ksf GLA 3.50 3.75
Active Entertainment with Bowling 3.00 1.20 5.25 1.50 /ksf GLA 4.20 6.75
Spaces required per unit land use
Weekday Weekend
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 5
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 4
site – a conservative assumption. For employees, we have based reductions on
“journey to work” data from the census for St. Louis Park.
NON-CAPTIVE ADJUSTMENT
The non-captive adjustment is made on sites where all-day parkers patronize retail,
dining and entertainment uses. These all-day parkers – employees, hotel guests,
residents – do not create parking demand when they walk over to a restaurant or shop,
and thus reduce the parking needs for the site as a whole. Captive market adjustments
depend on the relative sizes of land uses, and the types of retail and dining options on
the site.
PRESENCE FACTORS
Presence is the last factor applied to the shared parking model. It is expressed as a
percentage of potential demand modified for time of day, day of week, and time of
year. Considering that parking demand for each land use may peak at different times
generally means that fewer parking spaces are needed for the combination of land
uses in a project than would be required if each land use is considered separately.
The shared parking demand model evaluates parking demand for each land use from
6:00 a.m. to midnight on weekdays and weekends for every month of the year. An
additional analysis of the last week of December is included and treated as a
“thirteenth month.” During this unique period, special analysis is required due to the
difference in parking demand patterns between the pre-Christmas shopping season
and the Christmas week vacation period.
SHARED OFFICE BUILDING PARKING
As discussed above, the retail project has been designed to make use of shared
opportunities with the adjacent office buildings as well as within the retail project itself.
The extent to which parking on an adjacent site can reasonably be shared depends on
the walking distances and other sources of pedestrian “friction” such as major
boulevards that must be crossed, traffic etc. Walker often uses the concept of level of
service (LOS), which establishes a qualitative measure to characterize operational
conditions. The descriptions of individual levels of service are defined from A to F, with
LOS A representing the best operating conditions. LOS D is typically the value of the
minimum acceptable standard for parking and transportation systems. (However,
traffic engineers will sometimes rate systems to LOS E for the minimum standard). The
following table illustrates Walker’s LOS pertaining to walking distances from a parking
facility to the patron’s ultimate destination.
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 6
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 5
Table 3: LOS Maximum Walking Distance
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
The office parking structures are within a LOS of A or B walking distance to the retail,
making it a viable overflow option for customers as well as employees. In addition,
there are no major street crossings that would create a psychological barrier to using
the adjacent garage. It is our understanding that the ramp is currently used by
employees and visitors to the West End Retail site with no issues.
The amount of parking available in the office structure varies, depending on the
timeframe. Most of the supply is available on weekends and a little less is available on
weeknights, when there is still a notable presence in the offices in the early evening
hours. In late December many employees take vacation (our model uses 20 percent,
which may well be conservative), so in general a ramp that is typically crowded on
weekdays is likely to have a surplus during that week. On other weekdays, in theory a
ramp will be full. However, we modeled the parking demand associated with the
490,000 sf of office using the ramp currently, and found that the ramp should have
some surplus space at all times (even assuming a 100 percent drive ratio). Our
projection is shown below.
Maximum Walking Distance LOS D LOS C LOS B LOS A
Within Parking Facilities
Surface Lot 1,400' 1,050' 700' 350'
Structure 1,200' 900' 600' 300'
From Parking Destination
Climate controlled 5,200' 3,800' 2,400' 1,000'
Outdoors, covered 2,000' 1,500' 1,000' 500'
Outdoors, uncovered 1,600' 1,200' 800' 400'
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 7
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 6
Table 4: Projected Surpluses - Office Parking 2
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
The surplus is used in our analysis of peak parking demand for the retail project; some
issues associated with this are discussed in the Findings section.
PROJECTED PEAK DEMAND
The tables that follow show the projected parking needs, and ability of the supply to
accommodate those needs, during the weekday, weeknight, and weekend peak
periods for each month of the year.
SCENARIO A: RETAIL TENANT
Table 5 shows the projected parking needs for the project site on a typical peak
weekday, weeknight and weekend for each month of the year. As the table shows,
there is a significant parking deficit (488 spaces) during late December when the
cinema is busy during the weekdays due to school vacations. Smaller deficits are
projected during the Christmas shopping season and during the summer.
However, based on our modeling of the adjacent office, we anticipate that enough
spaces are available in the office ramp to offset the deficits during each period except
the last week of December, when a small deficit will remain.
2 Our original report assumed that the office ramp was completely full on weekdays and
reduced demand for off-peak hours by typical presence percentages starting from a baseline
of 1,566. For this update we have modeled the existing office according to industry standards
rather than simply assuming a parking demand equal to the supply.
Month
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
JANUARY 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
FEBRUARY 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
MARCH 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
APRIL 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
MAY 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
JUNE 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
JULY 1,314 1,566 252 310 1,566 1,256 132 1,566 1,434
AUGUST 1,314 1,566 252 310 1,566 1,256 132 1,566 1,434
SEPTEMBER 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
OCTOBER 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
NOVEMBER 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
DECEMBER 1,383 1,566 183 326 1,566 1,240 138 1,566 1,428
LATE DECEMBER*1,106 1,566 460 261 1,566 1,305 110 1,566 1,456
*Christmas to New Year
Weekday Daytime (8 am - 5 pm)Weeknights (6 pm - 11 pm)Weekends (All Day/Evening)
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 8
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 7
Table 5: Projected Peak Demand – Scenario A (Additional Retail)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
SCENARIO B: ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
Table 6 shows the projected parking needs for the project site under Scenario B. Here
too, peak demand is very high during the post-Christmas season due to the cinema,
but the adjacent office ramp is projected to have adequate capacity to
accommodate almost all of the demand.
Table 6: Projected Peak Demand -- Scenario B (Active Entertainment)
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
Month
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Available
from
Office
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Available
from
Office
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Available
from
Office
JANUARY 1,556 1,726 170 183 1,936 1,726 -210 1,240 2,311 1,726 -585 1,428
FEBRUARY 1,545 1,726 181 183 1,914 1,726 -188 1,240 2,237 1,726 -511 1,428
MARCH 1,666 1,726 60 183 2,077 1,726 -351 1,240 2,464 1,726 -738 1,428
APRIL 1,636 1,726 90 183 2,031 1,726 -305 1,240 2,358 1,726 -632 1,428
MAY 1,706 1,726 20 183 2,126 1,726 -400 1,240 2,508 1,726 -782 1,428
JUNE 1,733 1,726 -7 183 2,173 1,726 -447 1,240 2,582 1,726 -856 1,428
JULY 1,767 1,726 -41 252 2,243 1,726 -517 1,256 2,678 1,726 -952 1,434
AUGUST 1,756 1,726 -30 252 2,210 1,726 -484 1,256 2,590 1,726 -864 1,434
SEPTEMBER 1,611 1,726 115 183 1,995 1,726 -269 1,240 2,294 1,726 -568 1,428
OCTOBER 1,661 1,726 65 183 2,062 1,726 -336 1,240 2,448 1,726 -722 1,428
NOVEMBER 1,694 1,726 32 183 2,109 1,726 -383 1,240 2,546 1,726 -820 1,428
DECEMBER 1,869 1,726 -143 183 2,230 1,726 -504 1,240 2,672 1,726 -946 1,428
LATE DECEMBER*2,214 1,726 -488 460 2,345 1,726 -619 1,305 2,698 1,726 -972 1,456
*Christmas to New Year
Weekday Daytime (8 am - 5 pm)Weeknights (6 pm - 11 pm)Weekends (All Day/Evening)
Month
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Available
from
Office
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Available
from
Office
Peak
Demand Supply
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Available
from
Office
JANUARY 1,496 1,726 230 183 1,941 1,726 -215 1,240 2,406 1,726 -680 1,428
FEBRUARY 1,484 1,726 242 183 1,919 1,726 -193 1,240 2,332 1,726 -606 1,428
MARCH 1,601 1,726 125 183 2,087 1,726 -361 1,240 2,576 1,726 -850 1,428
APRIL 1,571 1,726 155 183 2,036 1,726 -310 1,240 2,459 1,726 -733 1,428
MAY 1,637 1,726 89 183 2,127 1,726 -401 1,240 2,605 1,726 -879 1,428
JUNE 1,668 1,726 58 183 2,173 1,726 -447 1,240 2,679 1,726 -953 1,428
JULY 1,718 1,726 8 252 2,249 1,726 -523 1,256 2,784 1,726 -1,058 1,434
AUGUST 1,688 1,726 38 252 2,211 1,726 -485 1,256 2,693 1,726 -967 1,434
SEPTEMBER 1,546 1,726 180 183 2,000 1,726 -274 1,240 2,398 1,726 -672 1,428
OCTOBER 1,594 1,726 132 183 2,069 1,726 -343 1,240 2,558 1,726 -832 1,428
NOVEMBER 1,616 1,726 110 183 2,104 1,726 -378 1,240 2,644 1,726 -918 1,428
DECEMBER 1,753 1,726 -27 183 2,216 1,726 -490 1,240 2,743 1,726 -1,017 1,428
LATE DECEMBER*2,197 1,726 -471 460 2,373 1,726 -647 1,305 2,805 1,726 -1,079 1,456
*Christmas to New Year
Weekday Daytime (8 am - 5 pm)Weeknights (6 pm - 11 pm)Weekends (All Day/Evening)
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 9
Gary Gleason
9 May 2013
Page 8
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our projection indicates that the office ramp can accommodate most of the overflow
from the retail site, with a few shortages during the post-Christmas week. Using the
ramp for West End employee parking would be efficient.
There are management options that can be used to accommodate the projected
deficit and any larger deficit that might occur if the office buildings generate demand
at higher than normal rates now or in the future, such that they can offer less overflow
space. Some options include:
1. Incentivizing employees not to drive during the busiest periods.
2. Leasing overflow space from surrounding land owners and having employees
park there.
3. Using nearby space owned by Duke that is planned for office. Once the office
is built, the ramps supporting the office could be used for overflow during the
post-Christmas period, and/or for valet parking to increase the supply.
4. Hiring valet attendants to park extra cars in the ramp (or some portions of the
West End site, for that matter);
When parking is free and unmonitored, it can be difficult to get employees to use
overflow space that is fairly far away (long walk or requiring a shuttle) or to use
alternative modes of travel. It is feasible, but requires hands-on management. Duke
Realty has a clause in all tenant leases allowing Duke to manage employee parking as
necessary, which is helpful. Also helpful is the fact that the percentage of employees
that would need to be managed off-site is small – a few dozen out of several hundred –
so getting enough compliance should be achievable. As outlined in items three and
four above, there are easier options than truly remote parking or alternative transit:
Using the nearby Duke-owned office site would be easier to manage than an off-site
lease with longer walking distances; the proximity will reduce the sense of
inconvenience that a remote parking lot can have. Valet is an easy option as well and
offers a nice level of service for customers, a certain percentage of whom will be willing
to pay a surcharge for the convenience.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Carolyn H. Krasnow, Ph.D.
Vice President
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 10
Tenant SF retail fine dining fast food theatre grocery office specialty notes
Signed Leases
Kerasotes Theater/Star Bar 59,500 59,500
Roundy's 55,288 55,288
Verizon Wireless 2,054 2,054
Noodles & Co.2,542 2,542
Crave 8,343 8,343
Glamour Nails 1,690 1,690
Roosters Men's Grooming Center 1,634 1,634
Cooper 7,427 7,427
Toby Keith's I Love this Bar & Grill 15,000 15,000
Omaha Steaks 1,230 1,230
Mall Office 2,396 2,396
Anthropologie 11,000 11,000
Love Culture 8,000 8,000
Creative Kidstuff 4,000 4,000
Jimmy John's 2,248 2,248
Republic of Couture 4,000 4,000
Lululemon Athletica 2,500 2,500
Subway 1,544 1,544
Rojo 9,065 9,065
Hot Mama/Brian 2,409 2,409
NutriShop/Tracy 1,288 1,288
Haute Barre 1,229 1,229
Cooper Expansion 1,495 1,495
Crave Expansion 750 750
Wedding Day Diamonds 3,000 3,000
Bergstrom Jewelers 4,716 4,716
Charming Charlie's 10,400 10,400
Jos. A. Bank 4,800 4,800
Little Szechuan 3,924 3,924
Filios 7,764 7,764
White House Black Mkt 3,000 3,000
Phresh Spa Salon 3,115 3,115
Hot Mama Expansion 2,149 2,149
Parmida Home 11,000 11,000
Primp 1,825 1,825
Blast Blow Dry Bar 2,269 2,269
Raku 3,679 3,679
Brush 2,195 2,195 combination painting studio and wine bar
Apricot Lane 1,820 1,820
Forever Yogurt 1,500 1,500
Minq 2,856 2,856
Francesca's 1,200 1,200
Restaurant - Building 23 south 10,500 10,500
Comedy Club - Building 23 south 9,250 2,250 7,000 2,250 sf resturant and 7,000 cemedy club
Regus 12,000 12,000
Baker Asociates 21,000 21,000
Subtotal Signed Leases:330,594 93,184 72,392 7,834 59,500 55,288 35,396 7,000 330,594
Future Tenant SF retail fine dining fast food theatre grocery office specialty
Restaurant - Building 31 8,110 8,110
Fast Casual - Building 31 2,484 2,484
Active Entertainment- Building 24 32,578 32,578 active entertainment with bowling alley
Fashion Retail- Building 23 south 3,139 3,139
Fashion Retail- Building 32 5,165 5,165
Subtotal Future Leases 51,476 8,304 8,110 2,484 0 0 0 32,578
Grand Total 382,070 101,488 80,502 10,318 59,500 55,288 35,396 39,578 382,070
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding Restaurants Page 11
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Major Amendment to West End PUD Regarding RestaurantsPage 12
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Knollwood Development Proposal Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this discussion is to provide
an update on the Knollwood Mall Development Proposal.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: At some point in the future the Council will need to consider
an important policy question relating to how stormwater requirements are met on this site.
SUMMARY: Rouse Companies (Rouse), the owners of the Knollwood Mall, submitted an
application for a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) to make significant
changes to both the Knollwood building and its parking lot. The application triggers an
obligation to meet stormwater requirements.
Stormwater: The last time Knollwood Mall was before the City Council was in 2004 for a
major amendment to the existing PUD. At that time, the City Council added the following
condition to the Resolution approving the PUD amendment, “On-site storm water management
must be brought into compliance with City standards when any future projects affect the parking
lot or with any future building expansions.” (Resolution No. 04-054 Condition (f))
As a condition of the current application, and to satisfy the condition of Resolution 04-054, Staff
is requiring the applicant to bring the entire 37 acre development into compliance with storm
water regulations. Rouse, however, has stated that bringing the property into compliance will
cost between $2.5 and $4 million dollars, and that they cannot afford to pay this as part of this
project. Therefore, Rouse is proposing to bring the land impacted by the proposed project (eight
acres) into compliance, and bring the remaining portion of the development closer to compliance
as part of future phases, which are currently unknown in scope and timing.
Rouse is also arguing that the language of Resolution No 04-054 Condition (f) quoted above
only requires that the eight acres affected by this project be brought into compliance at an
estimated cost of approximately $300,000 since the condition refers to future “projects”, not
“project”. Rouse also points to the fact that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not
require any improvements because less than 40 percent of the site is impacted.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The stormwater installation will be funded
by Rouse and the MCWD. It is possible that the City may be asked to maintain the lift stations if
a regional stormwater solution is agreed upon.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Development Proposal
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update
DISCUSSION
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Knollwood building: Rouse is proposing to remove the interior mall located between Kohls and
TJ Max. The interior mall will be replaced with approximately four “Junior Box” retailers about
the size of stores like Old Navy.
Small “out” building: A small three tenant building is proposed to be built in the parking lot at
the corner of Hwy 7 and Aquila Ave. This building will contain Panera Bread and two other
retailers. The Panera will include a drive-thru and an outdoor seating area.
Parking lot: The shopping center parking lot, located between Kohls, Hwy 7 and TJ Max will
be replaced and redesigned to improve traffic and pedestrian flow. The redesign will include
significant landscaping integrated into the pedestrian routes through the parking lot.
Storm water: Storm water generated by the Knollwood Mall development is currently not
treated to control rate of runoff or water quality. The storm water is collected and drained
directly into Minnehaha Creek. This obviously is not compliant to City or MCWD regulations.
Previous Council Action:
It is staff’s position that the current application triggers the obligation to bring the entire site into
compliance with storm water rate and quality requirements. The City Council discussed this
obligation in 2004, the last time Knollwood Mall amended its PUD. At that time, the Council
added a condition to the approval stating:
“On-site storm water management must be brought into compliance with City standards
when any future projects affect the parking lot or with any future building expansions.”
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Proposal:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regulations do not require any upgrade to the on-site
stormwater system because less than forty (40) percent of the site is being disturbed.
Discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) have identified a means of
expanding the Knollwood Mall stormwater improvement to incorporate approximately 100 acres
outside of the Knollwood Mall property that is not currently being treated, and drains directly
into the Minnehaha Creek.
MCWD has funded and drafted a concept for a sub-area stormwater management plan. Rouse
Properties and the City support this planning effort. The plan proposes a regional pond located
along the Minnehaha Creek.
This plan is complex and will take some time to complete. An alternative plan to accommodate
the stormwater on the Knollwood Mall site was prepared as a fall-back position should the off-
site pond be found to be unviable. If the storm water management has to be completed on-site,
then it would be constructed in the northwest corner of the property (behind Kohls). The first
phase would be a dry pond, which would be replaced at a pre-specified time with an
underground storm water management system. The fall-back position would still be sized to
function as a regional storm water system.
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update
The cost of either the off-site or on-site project would be split between Rouse Properties and
MCWD. The City may be asked to contribute to the project by agreeing to maintain the two
storm water lift stations required by the project design. (The City may be the most experienced
with the operations and maintenance of such facilities.) The off-site pond, however, would be
maintained by the MCWD. The MCWD is asking Rouse to pay its share, $2.5 million. To
facilitate the project, MCWD is also considering financing Rouse’s portion. Rouse, however,
has indicated that they cannot afford the obligation, even if the MCWD finances it.
NEXT STEPS:
The application is scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission on August 21st.
Since the City and Rouse do not control the off-site solution, the staff asked Rouse to show the
on-site storm water solution on their application. Therefore, should the off-site solution not
occur, Rouse can complete the on-site solution as approved by the City in the PUD amendment.
SUMMARY:
The MCWD has prepared and presented a solution to bring the Knollwood Mall into complete
compliance with City and MCWD storm water regulations.
The MCWD has offered to fund a portion of the improvements, and is considering financing
Rouse’s portion of the improvement.
City staff is considering accepting the maintenance obligations of the two storm water lift
stations because they are required to treat up to 100 acres of public storm water.
City staff is willing to consider a phased approach to implementing a storm water solution that
brings the entire development into compliance.
Rouse has stated that it is not required under the PUD to bring the entire site into compliance and
that it is unable to pay for a storm water system that treats the entire development, even if it is
phased over time and financed by the MCWD.
Rouse has not presented a storm water plan that treats the entire site in a manner that they can
afford even if it is phased over a reasonable amount of time.
Given the above considerations, is the City Council willing to consider an application for a
Major Amendment to the Knollwood Mall PUD without a feasible comprehensive solution to the
storm water requirements for the entire development?
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 4
Area proposed to be
disturbed
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: Knollwood Development Proposal Update Page 5
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 6
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Title: Knollwood Development Proposal UpdatePage 7
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: August 12, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Project Update - Sanitary Sewer Project (MCES Hopkins Interceptor Rehabilitation)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or
concerns you may have.
SUMMARY: The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is in the process of
replacing and rehabilitating a regional sanitary sewer (force main) referred to as the Hopkins
Interceptor. This sewer pipe extends across the entire length of the City of St. Louis Park from
Hopkins to Minneapolis, and generally follows an alignment along the South Frontage Road of
Highway 7, and Lake Street between Louisiana Avenue and the City of Hopkins. Rehabilitation
and replacement of this facility will occur in phases over a multi-year period. A first phase
between the MN&S Railroad Tracks and Highway 100 was completed in 2010 as part of the
Highway 7 & Wooddale Interchange Project.
The MCES next phase stretches from the Uptown area of Minneapolis to Lynn Avenue just
south of County Road 25 in St. Louis Park. MCES’s contractor, Lametti & Son’s, is completing
their work in Minneapolis and has begun working west into St. Louis Park by starting temporary
by-pass pumping between the eastbound lanes of CSAH 25 and the South Frontage Road and
storing materials near Beltline Boulevard and France Avenue.
The crews are currently working near the intersection of France Avenue and Sunset Boulevard.
This work requires a lane closure and detour of southbound France Avenue between Lake Street
and Sunset Boulevard. Additional construction activities, lane closures and detours will take
place as multiple crews advance their work zone across Lake Street and on to the South Frontage
Road towards Lynn Avenue.
Additional information regarding specific closures, timing, detours, etc. will be provided by
MCES as these closures are planned. MCES has engaged a public outreach firm to help them
inform residents, neighborhoods, and businesses of the ongoing construction activities. This
public outreach program will also include meeting with businesses individually and
communicating to neighborhood, religious, and educational organizations which are affected by
the construction activities.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project is funded and constructed by
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Map
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Interim Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Joseph Shamla, Engineering Project Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of August 12, 2013 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Project Update - Sanitary Sewer Project (MCES Hopkins Interceptor Rehabilitation)
PROJECT MAP