HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/01/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
JANUARY 17, 2012
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force
Written Reports
2. Outdoor Recreational Lighting Study
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes December 19, 2011
3b. Economic Development Authority Minutes January 3, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports -- None
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business
7a. Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and approving the related TIF Plan.
• Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of
certain costs in connection with the administration of the Oak Hill II TIF District.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special City Council/Closed Executive Session Minutes of January 3, 2012
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
Meeting of January 17, 2012
City Council Agenda
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the
regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent
Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items
from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and Resolution Approving the Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax
Increment Financing District and Related TIF Plan
Recommended Action: Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution
establishing the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and approving the related TIF Plan.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Members
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve the participants on the Community
Recreation Facility Task Force.
8b. Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat and Final PUD and Ellipse on Excelsior PUD
Major Amendment
Recommended Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Plat for ELLIPSE II ON
EXCELSIOR, subject to conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
for e2, subject to conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to the Final Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for Ellipse on Excelsior, subject to conditions.
9. Communication
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 of January 17, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Waive second reading, Adopt Ordinance vacating a landscaping easement, and approve
the summary ordinance for publication
4b. Adopt a Resolution approving the Final Plat for six single-family lots known as Fretham
Twelfth Addition
4c. Grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change orders
and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and
2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing
policy
4d. Human Rights Commission Minutes October 18, 2011
4e. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2011
4f. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2011
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests direction from the City Council on those people it desires to appoint to sit on the
Community Recreation Facility Task Force.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Who does the City Council wish to appoint to sit on the task force?
BACKGROUND:
At the November 28, 2011 Study Session the City Council provided feedback on the recently
conducted tours of three community centers and the makeup and formation of a task force to
assist the City Council with this initiative. At the December 12, 2011 Study Session Council
authorized staff to advertise and accept applications from persons interested in sitting on the task
force. Applications were received from 17 persons and these applications are attached.
SELECTION OF A TASK FORCE:
Based on input from the Council, the task force will include one or two members from each of
the following: the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC), Planning Commission,
Community Education Advisory Committee (CEAC), one or two youth associations, Lenox
Community Center, the business community and/or Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the
school district, a youth member, and a resident or representative from each ward.
Staff will provide a list of potential task force members at the meeting on the 17th for Council to
consider. The following applicants have volunteered to represent the commissions and
organizations:
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission: Tom Worthington and Jim Beneke
Planning Commission: Claudia Johnston-Madison
Youth: Sophia Flummerfelt
Community Education Advisory Committee: Gregg Lindberg
Lenox/Older adults: Shirley Zimmerman
Business/Financial: Chuck Souvignier
Youth Associations: Laurie Hynes (Girls Fastpitch softball)
School District: Andy Ewald (Athletic Director) and Lisa Greene (Community Ed Director)
CVB: possibly John Basill (Mr. Basill is requesting direction from his board of directors)
MISSION OF THE TASK FORCE:
The mission of the Community Recreation Facility Task Force is to consider community input
that was received from previous surveys, gather additional information and input, and make
recommendations to the City Council regarding the addition of future recreation facilities or
programs. As a part of this process, the Task Force will also look at possible partnerships and
locations.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force
PROCESS:
The Task Force will meet 7 to 9 times, typically monthly although on some occasions they meet
more frequently. In addition to Task Force meetings, they will be asked to participate and assist
in leading focus groups and public meetings to help further define what the community would
like to see in future facilities or programs.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None as related to this action.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one of the adopted
Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community” and the related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center,
including indoor/winter use”.
Attachments: Applications
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 3
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 4
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 5
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 6
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 7
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 8
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 9
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 10
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 11
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 12
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 13
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 14
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 15
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 16
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 17
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 18
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 19
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 20
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 21
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 22
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 23
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 24
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Applicants for Community Recreation Facility Task Force Page 25
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is being provided for informational purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council have questions or concerns about staff’s intent to undertake a process of updating
our Zoning Ordinance regarding the city’s lighting regulations?
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with information regarding a study being
initiated to review exterior lighting and its regulation under the Zoning Ordinance. The need to
update our light rules was made apparent by concerns raised by neighbors about the lighting at
the new BSM athletic fields.
LIGHTING REGULATIONS:
Exterior lighting is regulated under Section 36-363 of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the
section is to:
“…minimize the adverse effect of light and glare on operators of motor vehicles,
pedestrians, and on residential and other land uses in the vicinity of a light source in
order to promote traffic safety and to prevent the nuisances associated with the intrusion
of spillover light and glare.”
The ordinance has two categories: “General Provisions,” and “Outdoor Recreational Lighting,”
recognizing that there are differences between lighting types. For example, a soccer field used
intermittently during fall evenings requires a different lighted environment in comparison to an
automobile fuel station, which might be lit 24 hours a day throughout the year.
Based on concerns raised by citizens living in proximity to the new Benilde St-Margaret’s
athletic field, a field survey was completed of athletic fields throughout the City including those
operated by the City and the St. Louis Park School District. The field survey looked primarily at
two aspects of lighting regulations:
1. The requirement to limit foot-candle levels to 0.5 foot-candles at the property line.
2. A requirement that “lighting equipment shall not be placed or permitted to remain on a
site if the light source or its reflected image can be viewed directly from a location off the
site…”
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Study
The survey found that the foot-candle requirement often cannot be met at sporting facilities with
outdoor recreational lighting within the City, depending on the layout of the fields, lighting and
the location of the property line.
The necessary light level for outdoor recreational activities is determined by a variety of factors,
including the type of sport being played, equipment used, and safety of the athletes. Lighting
must cover fields appropriately and evenly, which makes fully shielding and directing the light
more difficult than for other uses, such as commercial businesses or parking lots. The level of
light used (generally between 30-40 FC on the playing field) means that in situations where
athletic fields are located adjacent to residential properties, it is challenging to bring light levels
down to the 0.5 FC level over what is sometimes a relatively short distance.
The second requirement, related to the visibility of “the light source or its reflected image,” was
not met at any of the outdoor recreational lighting installations reviewed during the field survey,
and may be difficult to meet in other lighting situations. It will need to be addressed in this study
as well.
NEXT STEPS:
The proposed review of the outdoor lighting regulations will take the following approach:
1. Identify and summarize the critical issues. For example, a review of current outdoor
lighting in the community, the current ordinance, and new lighting technologies.
2. Research and summarize best practices for outdoor lighting standards and other cities’
ordinances.
3. Determine how to address the lighting needs while not causing an undue burden for
neighboring property owners.
4. Propose revisions to regulations.
5. Present draft ordinance revisions to PC and CC at study sessions.
6. Finalize ordinance for public comment and possible adoption.
The first step is already underway. A consultant has been engaged and is currently reviewing the
work completed to date. It is expected that this item will be back before the City Council within
a two to three month timeframe for an update. The process to compose the ordinance revisions is
expected to take three to four months.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The consulting contract is for $5,200 and will be paid for from the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 19, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance
Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of December 5, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period November 25, 2011, through December 9, 2011.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. 2012 Final HRA Levy Certification.
EDA Resolution No. 11-19
Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and explained that on September 6th, the EDA
adopted a Preliminary HRA Levy of $983,574, representing the maximum amount
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2011
allowable under State statute based on a percentage of the City’s previous year’s taxable
market value. He stated that this amount is an approximate $45,000 decrease from 2011,
or approximately 4.41%. He noted that the 2012 HRA budget lists no expenditures;
however, the City has budgeted approximately $3.4 million in capital expenditures for
2013-2015, including such projects as Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue
reconstruction, and/or Highway 100 reconstruction.
It was moved by Commissioner Ross, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 11-19 Authorizing the HRA Levy for 2012 and Approval of the EDA
Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
7b. Approve Fund Closings.
EDA Resolution No. 11-20
Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and proposed fund closings. He stated that three
EDA funds have been identified to be closed at the end of 2011, including the 2009A
GOTI Refunding Bonds, 2006-2007 Hoigaard Village TIF notes, and Trunk Highway 7
TIF District.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 11-20 Authorizing Fund Closings.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
7c. Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
EDA Resolution No. 11-21
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and the proposed Sixth Amendment to the
Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC. He stated that the Sixth Amendment
allows the final two components of Hoigaard Village to be constructed, including the
Adagio, a 100-unit market rate apartment building and Medley Row, 22-unit market rate
townhouses. He indicated the proposed buildings will initially be rental but will be
constructed in such a way that would allow the units to be sold when market conditions
improve. He stated that construction would commence by July 1, 2012, and be
completed by December 31, 2013. He advised that the Sixth Amendment also allows
Union Land II LLC to continue to lease the Harmony Vista units until such time as the
Redeveloper concludes that the market has recovered and Redeveloper is able to sell the
units. He indicated the Sixth Amendment also changes the form of the TIF Notes
provided for Stages 2 and 3 and anticipates issuing two pay-as-you -go TIF Notes totaling
$1,020,000. He added that this is the EDA’s preferred financing method and is less
complicated and less expensive means of providing the TIF assistance to the
Redeveloper.
Commissioner Sanger stated she was in agreement with extending the construction
deadlines and would reluctantly agree to allowing the developer to continue to lease the
Harmony Vista units until the developer could sell them. She expressed concern
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2011
regarding the developer’s insistence on changing the unit mix within the Adagio to
include smaller units that will not accommodate families and did not feel this was in the
best interest of the community. She stated the developer has changed the unit mix to
include additional apartments that are smaller, resulting in more studio sized apartments
and fewer one bedroom/one bedroom + den units. She indicated the developer is
claiming that this is what the current market is demanding, but felt this was short term
thinking and the City needs to think longer term about the housing mix needed in the
City. She stated that since the City is providing TIF financing, this is not a market driven
project and the City should have a say regarding the unit sizes. She added that the
question of housing unit sizes needs to be addressed on an overall basis in the
community, particularly given the City’s demographics.
Commissioner Mavity stated that she was surprised to see the shift in unit types,
particularly after the discussions that took place with the developer and the concerns that
were raised at the Nov. 14th Study Session. She agreed that the TIF financing should go
forward and she wanted to see the project move forward, but was troubled that the
developer would come back with a proposal that moves in the opposite direction of what
the EDA was asking for. She asked if there were time sensitive issues related to the
EDA’s action on the Sixth Amendment.
Mr. Hunt explained that the developer is looking to secure financing with his partners,
that the EDA’s approval was needed for that financing approval to occur and noted there
are two separate resolutions before the EDA.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned the impact on the developer if the EDA approved the
TIF financing but did not approve the Sixth Amendment as it relates to the proposed
housing mix.
Mr. Hunt stated that the developer currently has approval with his financial backers based
on the proposed unit mix.
Mr. Frank Dunbar, 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, appeared before the EDA
and explained that he inadvertently presented outdated housing mix information at the
November 14th Study Session and the current proposal is close to what was presented on
November 14th. He stated that the current market is driving the demand for smaller-sized
units and this mix was approved by his investor; if a change in the housing mix is
required, he would have to get approval from his investor.
Commissioner Sanger requested the developer comment on the timing of the project if
the EDA said it was not comfortable with the proposed housing mix.
Mr. Dunbar stated he would immediately contact his lender and he would also want to
revisit the market research. He indicated that his investor sees the rent rolls generated
every week to see which units are renting and they are finding that two bedroom units
have to be discounted. He added that they tried to get as close as they could to the earlier
version while still maintaining the amenity package.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2011
Commissioner Mavity indicated that the City is an investor in this project and has a great
interest in seeing the project move forward and succeed. She reiterated her support for
providing the TIF financing but wanted to see the developer take another look at the
Adagio’s unit mix.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve
EDA Resolution Approving a Sixth Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
Union Land II LLC, Medley Row, LLC, Webster Group, LLC, and Camerata, LLC.
The motion failed 3-3 (Commissioners Mavity, Ross, and Sanger opposed; Commissioner
Omodt absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 11-21 Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms,
Covenants and Directions for the Issuance of its Tax Increment Revenue Notes to
Webster Group, LLC, and Medley Row, LLC.
Commissioner Sanger asked if the EDA can approve the TIF financing without a current
amended contract for private redevelopment.
Mr. Locke advised that the TIF financing can be approved conditioned on the project
moving forward.
President Finkelstein requested a friendly amendment to approve the TIF financing
conditioned upon approval of the Sixth Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment.
Commissioner Mavity agreed with the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Ross seconded the friendly amendment.
The motion passed 5-1 (Commissioner Sanger opposed; Commissioner Omodt absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 3, 2012
1. Call to Order
Treasurer Santa called the meeting to order at 7:46 p.m.
Commissioners present: Treasurer Sue Santa, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - None
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period December 10, 2011 through December 30, 2011.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Ross absent).
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. 2012 Economic Development Authority Officers
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to elect Sue
Santa as President, Anne Mavity as Vice President, and Julia Ross as Treasurer to the
Economic Development Authority for the 2012 term.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Ross absent).
8. Communications – None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary Treasurer
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
- Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and approving the related TIF Plan.
- Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs
in connection with the administration of the Oak Hill II TIF District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District to
facilitate the construction of an office building of approximately 21,450 SF at 3340 Republic
Avenue?
Does the EDA support authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in connection
with the administration of the Oak Hill II TIF District?
Anderson-KM Builders’ application for tax increment financing assistance was reviewed at the
October 24, 2011 Study Session where it was favorably received. At its December 5th meeting,
the City Council set a public hearing date of January 17th for the creation of the proposed TIF
district. A report on the potential business terms that would serve as the basis for a development
contract with Anderson-KM Builders was submitted at the January 9th Study Session. It is now
time to take the final step in the TIF process which is to formally authorize the creation of the
TIF district. S uch authorization enables the EDA to use tax increment generated from the
proposed Oak Hill II project to Anderson-KM Builders as reimbursement for qualified costs
incurred in the construction of the proposed office building.
Establishment of TIF districts also requires a public hearing and the approval of the City
Council. Thus, during the City Council meeting this evening the City Council will hold a public
hearing on this topic, after which it will likewise be asked to approve the establishment of the
Oak Hill II TIF District.
BACKGROUND:
Anderson Builders was a real estate development, design management, and construction
company based in St. Louis Park since 1999. In addition to the Oak Hill office building located
at 3501 Louisiana Ave. (near the intersection of Louisiana Ave and Walker St.) the firm built a
variety of office, industrial and retail facilities as well as churches and health care clinics
throughout the Twin Cities area.
The subject property is located in the Lenox Neighborhood at the northwest corner of Walker
Street and Republic Avenue; immediately east of Anderson Builders’ Oak Hill office building.
The subject property posed several development challenges as the site is small (¾-acre),
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
triangular in shape, required demolition of an old 6,400 SF commercial building, and has a 13
foot elevation change across the site. In 2007 Anderson Builders purchased the property and
planned to construct a 2-story, 15,000 SF office building in its place. The next year it removed
the former office building on the site. The EDA previously agreed to provide financial assistance
to the project but due to economic conditions and Anderson’s inability to obtain project
financing, the proposed office project was unable to proceed and the agreement with Anderson
was terminated.
This past July it was announced that Anderson Builders and Minneapolis-based KM Building
Company, led by Greg Anderson and Steven Faber, respectively, had joined with real estate and
construction executives Kent M. Carlson and Arne Cook to form a new firm called: Anderson-
KM Builders. Carlson was formerly a senior executive with Ryan Companies. Cook is a real
estate development consultant who held senior management positions with CSM Corporation,
First Industrial Realty Trust and The Opus Group. Carlson is the new company's chief executive.
The four partners established Anderson-KM Builders to provide comprehensive building and
development services to local and regional clients. The new company employs 30 people.
Proposed Project
Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from Anderson Builder's location on Park Glen Rd
in St. Louis Park as well as KM Building's offices in Minneapolis. The firm plans to build a new
facility and consolidate its operations within a single location. The proposed office site is the
property owned by Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The proposed office building
would be approximately 21,450 SF; approximately 6,430 SF larger than the office building
Anderson previously planned to construct on the site. Like the former building, the new Oak Hill
II would be a multi-tenant, professional office building. Because the proposed new building
would be constructed into the side of the hill facing Republic Avenue it will appear as one story
off Republic and two stories off Walker Street (see attached Building Renderings). Oak Hill II
will be an attractive brick structure designed to complement the original Oak Hill office building
next door.
Under this latest proposal, Anderson-KM Builders will occupy approximately half the new
building (6,001 SF of office and 4,715 SF of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF will be built out
as office space and leased to one or more tenants. Oak Hill II will be marketed to general office
users and specialty medical users given its proximity to Methodist Hospital.
Project Schedule
Anderson-KM Builders plans to commence construction on the office building in spring 2012
and have it completed by the end of the year.
Current/Proposed Market Value
The subject property’s current assessed value is $700,000. Once the new building is complete
and fully occupied, the property would be assessed for $3.5 million by 2013.
Job Creation
As noted earlier, Anderson-KM Builders plans to consolidate its operations within the proposed
Oak Hill II building. Anderson Builders with its 15 employees would relocate from its Park
Glen location and KM Builders with its 15 employees would relocate from Minneapolis. In
addition, 25 jobs are anticipated to result from tenants filling the 2nd floor office space. Thus, a
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
total of 15 jobs are expected to be retained and up to 40 jobs are expected to be created in St.
Louis Park if the proposed project proceeds.
Request for Tax Increment Assistance
In order to pursue the above project Anderson-KM Builders applied for up to $300,000 in tax
increment assistance from the EDA to offset a small portion of the construction costs associated
with the proposed building. As a percentage of total project cost the requested amount of
financial assistance is approximately 7%.
The project is not economically feasible without some public financial assistance. Anderson’s
request for TIF assistance is considered reasonable given the complexity, quality, projected total
value, and other economic benefits derived from the proposed redevelopment. T he EDA’s
participation would leverage approximately $4.3 million in new investment.
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/City Council reviewed Anderson-KM Builders’ TIF application at the October 24,
2011 Study Session. The proposed project and application were favorably received and staff was
directed to work further with the company to negotiate business terms that would enable the
proposed project to move forward. At its December 5th meeting, the City Council set a public
hearing date of January 17, 2012 f or consideration of the proposed Oak Park II Economic
Development TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing Plan on January 4th, as
required by state law, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
In order to provide the Redeveloper with the proposed tax increment assistance a new TIF
district must be formed. The proposed Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District (an
economic development district) is detailed in the attached TIF Plan. The TIF Plan was prepared
by the EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers & Associates. In a general sense, TIF plans may be viewed
as enabling legislation. They establish the proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic
boundaries, maximum duration, maximum budget authority for tax increment revenues and
expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well as estimated impact on various taxing
jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify the district. The specific mutual
obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial
assistance are contained in the separate Contract for Private Redevelopment between the parties
(to be considered February 6th). Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment Contract need to be
approved in order for economic development or redevelopment projects involving tax increment
to proceed.
The proposed Oak Hill II TIF District consists of a single property: 3340 Republic Avenue along
with adjacent rights-of-way. The proposed TIF District is within the city’s Redevelopment
Project Area as is statutorily required. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated
Redevelopment Project Area gives the EDA/Council the authority to assist with all the
redevelopment actions necessary to implement the Oak Hill II project.
Feasibility and Duration of the Oak Hill II TIF District
The financial assistance to be provided to Anderson-KM Builders to facilitate the proposed
office project meets the requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
as allowed under the 2010 State of Minnesota Jobs Act. It is estimated that upon completion the
proposed project will generate approximately $300,000 in tax increment (present value) over the
9-year term of the district.
TIF District Revenue Uses of Funds
It should be noted that the project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds (Section 2-10) of the
proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project budget.
Fiscal Disparities Election
In keeping with the City’s TIF Policy, the Oak Hill II TIF District will contribute to fiscal
disparities as opposed to the tax base of the City making the contribution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Authorizing the establishment of the Oak Hill II TIF District does not, in itself, commit the
EDA/City to any specific level of financial assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it
simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse Anderson-KM Builders for a portion of its
qualified project costs. The terms and amount of TIF assistance are specified within the
Development Contract with Oak Hill II 7100 L LC (Anderson-KM Builders) which is to be
considered at the February 6th EDA meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and
promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution Adopting TIF Plan
Resolution Authorizing Interfund Loan
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing Plan Summary
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Oak Hill II TIF District
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - ____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
ESTABLISHING THE OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR
WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of St. Louis Park
(the "City") that the EDA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") and establish the Oak
Hill II Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing
Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are
referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable
law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 t o 469.1082, a nd Sections 469.174 t o
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the
Board's consideration; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the
Plans to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption of the Plans. The EDA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide
for review of and written comment on Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on
the Plans upon published notice as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic
development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and finds
that the Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a
need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which is already built up and that the
adoption of the proposed development will create jobs in the State of Minnesota. The
proposed development would not commence prior to July 1, 2012, w ithout the tax
increment financing to be provided.
2. The EDA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the
Project Area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public
assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
3. The boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded.
4. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans.
5. The EDA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from inside the District.
6. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing
thereon, the Plans, as presented to the EDA on this date, are hereby approved, established
and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the
EDA.
7. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the EDA's advisors and legal
counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and
for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration
all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a Development
Agreement with any developer.
8. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the EDA is
authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175,
Subd. 4a.
9. The Executive Director of the EDA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the
Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax
capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 469.177.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
January 17, 2012
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - ____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE
OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OAK HILL II TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Authority (the "EDA") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"),
intends to establish the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the
"TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
WHEREAS, the EDA has determined to use tax increments from the TIF District to pay
for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan, which may include land/building acquisition, site
improvements/preparation and construction costs, public utilities, streets and sidewalks, interest
and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs"), which costs may be financed on a
temporary basis from EDA funds available for such purposes.
WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the EDA is authorized
to advance or loan money from the EDA's general fund or any other fund from which such
advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs.
WHEREAS, the EDA intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax
increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which
terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan").
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby authorizes the advance of up to $500,000 from any legally authorized
EDA fund or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. T he EDA shall
reimburse itself for such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest
accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of
interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance
is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will
fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or
Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not
fluctuate.
2. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-annually on
each August 1 a nd February 1 ( each a "Payment Date"), commencing on t he first
Payment Date on which the EDA has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
any other dates determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, through the date of last
receipt of tax increment from the TIF District.
3. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment,"
which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations
have been paid, or as determined by the Executive Director of the EDA, generated in the
preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted
to the City by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be
subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in
part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future
interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment.
4. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the EDA without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment
otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan.
5. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the EDA in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely
from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This
Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general
obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including,
without limitation, the EDA. N either the State of Minnesota, nor any political
subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund
Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither
the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political
subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on t his
Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The EDA shall have no obligation to pay
any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may
remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
6. The EDA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the
Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued
interest to the extent permissible under law.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
January 17, 2012
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of St. Louis Park
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics
can be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Proposed action: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District ("District")
and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ("TIF Plan")
Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1,
which includes the establishment of the Oak Hill II TIF District.
Type of TIF District: An economic development district
Parcel Numbers: 17-117-21-42-0072
Proposed
Development:
The District is being created to facilitate construction of an approximately
21,400 square foot office facility in the City. Please see Appendix A of the
TIF Plan for a more detailed project description.
Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd.
1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the District will be 8 years
after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by
the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated
that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2023, or when the TIF Plan is
satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be
2022. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the
legally required date.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $70,258
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 9
Page 2
Authorized uses:
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that
may be expended:
Land/Building Acquisition ....................................................... $20,000
Site Improvements/Preparation .............................................. $150,000
Utilities ..................................................................................... $75,000
Other Qualifying Improvements ............................................ $172,556
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ............................................ $55,029
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ................................................... $472,585
Interest ................................................................................... $132,738
PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL ....... $605,323
See Subsection 2-10, page 2-5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization.
Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. It is estimated that the
City will only utilize 5% of annual increment.
Interfund Loan
Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment
fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from another
fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
4 Year Activity Rule
(§ 469.176 Subd. 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by approximately January 2015, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(§ 469.1763 Subd. 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended.
Any obligations in the District made after approximately January 2016, will
not be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit F of the TIF Plan
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 10
Page 3
MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
THE HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 11
Page 4
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 12
As of January 11, 2012
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
(an economic development district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: January 17, 2012
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 13
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax
Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .... 2-3
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-4
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-5
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-7
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................. 2-9
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-9
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-10
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-12
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-13
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-13
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-14
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-14
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 14
Appendix F
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... F-1
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 15
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the Oak
Hill II Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redeve lopment Plan for Redevelopm ent Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the City Clerk at the City of St. Louis Park. Other relevant information
is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 16
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Oak Hill
II Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing
district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City , there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause developm ent or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as am ended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This District is being created pursuant to M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 12, as modified by, M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 4c(d).
This section contains the Tax Increm ent Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other rel evant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is
being created to facilitate construction of an approxi mately 21,400 square foot office facility in the City.
Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA expects to enter into a developm ent
agreement with Anderson-KM Builders at the time of approval of the TIF Plan and development is expected
to occur in 2012. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 17
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
5. The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The proposed
reuse of private property within the District will be for a office building, and there will be
continued operation of Redevelopment Project No. 1 after the capital improvements within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 have been completed.
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent right s-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The City or EDA may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or EDA only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or developm ent to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan . The City of EDA may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The District is an economic development district as defined in M.S. 469.174, Subd. 12, as modified by M.S.,
Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d). In order to create an economic development district under general law (M.S.,
Section 469.174 Subd. 12), the EDA or City must find that the Di strict is in the public interest because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations
to another state or municipality; or
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
(3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state.
In addition, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c provides that assist ance from a general law econom ic
development district may not be used to provide assistance to development if more than 15 percent of the
buildings and ancillary facilities (d etermined on a square footage basis), are used for other than certain
specified purposes (largely manufacturing, warehousing and distribution facilities).
However, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) provides a limited-time exception to these general law rules.
Under this provision (originally enacted in 2010 legisl ature and extended in 2011 legislature), a City may
provide assistance to economic development districts, notwithstanding the normal findings required under
M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and notwithstanding the limitation on types of assisted development under
M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, subject to certain conditions.
To satisfy the requirement of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), the City finds that the following conditions
are satisfied:
(1) the project will create or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs, and
construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the
authority providing assistance under the provisions of this paragraph;
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 18
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
(2) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012;
(3) the request for certification of the district will be made no later than June 30, 2012; and
(4) the assistance will not be used for the development of housing.
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
The City is creating the District is pursuant to M.S. Sections 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) in order to assist in the
construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility. If construction does not commence by
July 1, 2012, the City and EDA will not grant assistance unless the proposed facility meets the criteria in
M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a), and satisfies the findings required under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in
any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District
must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the
District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increm ent is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estim ated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2023, or when
the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2022. The EDA
or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2011 for taxes payable 2012.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2013) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes pay able 2012, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2012. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 19
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in th e tax year payable 2013. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$95,023
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$13,250
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $28,213
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$53,560
Original Local Tax Rate 1.31176 EstimatedPay 2012
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)$70,258
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 8. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $75,012.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargem ent pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined that no building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be fina nced primarily through the annual collect ion of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. Any
refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision
does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only
upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table on the following page:
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 20
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $550,294
Interest $55,029
TOTAL $605,323
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $472,585. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-you-
go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded
indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a pr oposal to facilitate construction of an approximately
21,400 square foot office facility. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide
assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the
development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and
development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to
pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with
the District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $20,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $150,000
Utilities $75,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $172,556
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$55,029
PROJECT COST TOTAL $472,585
Interest $132,738
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $605,323
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Appendix D.
Estimated capital and adm inistrative costs listed above are subject to change am ong categories by
modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF Plan, so
long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above. Further, the
EDA or City may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for activities (described in
the table above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of the Project
(including administrative costs, which are considered to be spend outside the District), subject to all other
terms and conditions of this TIF Plan.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 21
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, the EDA or City must calculate fiscal disparities using
the following method of computation:
(b) The following method of computation applies to any economic development district for which the
request for certification was made after June 30, 1997, and to any other district for which the
governing body, by resolution approving the tax increment financing plan pursuant to M.S., Section
469.177, Subd. 3, elects:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal
disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude
any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original
year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to
M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the
original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no
captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity
is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and
the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion
thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with
the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from
the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates.
The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax
capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax
generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the
original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax
increment of the authority.
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 22
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organizati on described in section 501 (c) (3) o f the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minn esota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by , the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of th e EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but fo r" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estim ated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 23
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Estimated
2011/Pay 20112
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,253,423,199 53,560 0.0043%
City of St. Louis Park 49,781,486 53,560 0.1076%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 47,211,090 53,560 0.1134%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Estimated Pay 2012
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.487770 37.18% 53,560 26,125
City of St. Louis Park 0.455430 34.72% 53,560 24,393
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.254800 19.42% 53,560 13,647
Other 0.113760 8.67%53,560 6,093
Total 1.311760 100.00%70,258
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2012 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on estimated Pay 2012 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which
were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $550,294;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is expected to be m inimal. The City does track all calls for service
including property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new businesses, police calls for
service will likely be increased. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of
itself, will necessitate new capital investm ent in ve hicles or require that the City hire additional
officers.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any , and are of superior construction. A building constructed to
current safety standards with autom atic fire detection and suppression sy stems, such as the one
proposed, will significantly reduce service calls and protect human life and safety.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is
not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 24
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District
is not expected to contribute to sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no im pact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estim ated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district' s share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $106,867;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $204,599;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan m ust contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increm ents made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 25
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the
county auditor. If an economic development district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the
determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 must be
documented in writing and retain ed. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only
modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Dist rict and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the
parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's
original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the
original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s)
eliminated from the District.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provide d for persons residing or businesses located in the
District; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 26
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to pr ovide for the paym ent of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately January
2015 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 27
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circum vent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reim burse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public im provement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with appli cable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 28
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, b y acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse
for the EDA or City should the development not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to o ccur solely through private investm ent within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increm ent financing would be less than the increase in the m arket value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the m aximum duration of the District perm itted by the TIF Plan. In m aking said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written repr esentation made by the developer to such effects
and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 29
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow
in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less
the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishm ent of the
District and the use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopm ent of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082.Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax i ncrements from the District m ust be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and b eginning with the sixth y ear
following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by
Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105, telephone (651) 697-
8500.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 30
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
Newly-formed Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from office locations in St. Louis Park and in
Minneapolis. The full-service real estate development, design management, and construction company plans
to build a new office facility and c onsolidate its operations there. The proposed office site is the property
owned by former Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The proposed Oak Hill II office building will
be approximately 21,450 SF and two stories. Oak Hill II will be an attractive brick structure designed to
complement the original Oak Hill office building next door.
Anderson-KM Builders will occupy approximately half the new building (6,001 SF of office and 4,715 SF
of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF will be built out as office space and leased to one or more tenants. Oak
Hill II will be marketed to general office users and specialty medical users given its proximity to Methodist
Hospital.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 31
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 32
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 33
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 34
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent right s-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcel listed below.
Parcel Number Address Owner
17-117-21-42-0072 3340 Republic Ave.Oak Hill 7100, LLC
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 35
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 36
12/16/2011Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Oak Hill IICity of St. Louis Park21,432 Sq/Ft OfficeASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:Economic DevelopmentMaximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 131.176% Pay 2012 PrelimDistrict Name/Number:Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)131.176% Pay 2012 PrelimCounty District #:State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)52.0000% Pay 2012 PrelimFirst Year Construction or Inflation on Value2012Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.17684% Pay 2012 PrelimExisting District - Specify No. Years RemainingInflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES:Interest Rate:5.00%Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-12Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)First Period Ending1-Feb-13First $150,0001.50%Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2012Over $150,0002.00%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2014Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Years of Tax Increment9Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2022Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)0.75%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res.)1.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio34.5021% Pay 2012 PrelimFirst $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate141.9450% Pay 2012 PrelimOver $500,0001.25%Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandBuildingTotal Of Value Used Original Original Tax OriginalAfter ConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value Market Value Market Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. Area/Phase1711721420072 City3340 Republic Ave 700,0000700,000100% 700,000 Pay 2012 C/I Pref.13,250 C/I Pref.13,250 700,0000700,000700,000 13,25013,250Note:1. Base value is for pay 2012 based upon review of County website on 9-13-11.2. Development is located in SD #283 and WS #3 BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Oak Hill II\TIF Runs\TIF Run - 12-6-11 -FINAL FOR TIF PLANEDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 37
12/16/2011Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Oak Hill IICity of St. Louis Park21,432 Sq/Ft OfficeEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2012201320142015PayableOffice175175 21,432 3,750,600C/I75,012100% 100%100%100%2014TOTAL3,750,60075,012 Subtotal Residential000 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.21,432 3,750,60075,012 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from Assessor.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxes TaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitOffice 75,012 25,881 49,13164,44836,736 39,0066,633 146,824 6.85TOTAL 75,012 25,881 49,13164,44836,736 39,0066,633 146,824Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.2. If tax increment in received in 2013,then the district will be one year shorter.Total Property Taxes146,824less State-wide Taxes(39,006)less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(36,736)less Market Value Taxes(6,633)less Base Value Taxes(11,384)Annual Gross TIF 53,064 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?TAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Oak Hill II\TIF Runs\TIF Run - 12-6-11 -FINAL FOR TIF PLANEDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 38
12/16/2011Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Oak Hill IICity of St. Louis Park21,432 Sq/Ft OfficeTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocalAnnual Semi-Annual StateAdmin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% ofTaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC CapacityCapacityIncremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% IncrementValueYrs.YearDate- - - - 02/01/13- - - - 08/01/13- - - - 02/01/14100% 75,012 (13,250) (21,309) 40,453 131.176% 53,064 26,532 (96) (2,644) 23,793 21,555 0.5 2014 08/01/14100% 75,012 (13,250) (21,309) 40,453 131.176% 53,064 26,532 (96) (2,644) 23,793 42,585 1 2014 02/01/15100% 77,262 (13,250) (22,086) 41,927 131.176% 54,998 27,499 (99) (2,740) 24,660 63,849 1.5 2015 08/01/15100% 77,262 (13,250) (22,086) 41,927 131.176% 54,998 27,499 (99) (2,740) 24,660 84,595 2 2015 02/01/16100% 79,580 (13,250) (22,885) 43,445 131.176% 56,989 28,495 (103) (2,839) 25,553 105,567 2.5 2016 08/01/16100% 79,580 (13,250) (22,885) 43,445 131.176% 56,989 28,495 (103) (2,839) 25,553 126,028 3 2016 02/01/17100% 81,968 (13,250) (23,709) 45,009 131.176% 59,040 29,520 (106) (2,941) 26,473 146,708 3.5 2017 08/01/17100% 81,968 (13,250) (23,709) 45,009 131.176% 59,040 29,520 (106) (2,941) 26,473 166,884 4201702/01/18100% 84,427 (13,250) (24,557) 46,619 131.176% 61,153 30,577 (110) (3,047) 27,420 187,272 4.5 2018 08/01/18100% 84,427 (13,250) (24,557) 46,619 131.176% 61,153 30,577 (110) (3,047) 27,420 207,163 5 2018 02/01/19100% 86,959 (13,250) (25,431) 48,278 131.176% 63,329 31,665 (114) (3,155) 28,396 227,260 5.5 2019 08/01/19100% 86,959 (13,250) (25,431) 48,278 131.176% 63,329 31,665 (114) (3,155) 28,396 246,866 6 2019 02/01/20100% 89,568 (13,250) (26,331) 49,987 131.176% 65,571 32,785 (118) (3,267) 29,401 266,671 6.5 2020 08/01/20100% 89,568 (13,250) (26,331) 49,987 131.176% 65,571 32,785 (118) (3,267) 29,401 285,993 7 2020 02/01/21100% 92,255 (13,250) (27,258) 51,747 131.176% 67,879 33,940 (122) (3,382) 30,436 305,507 7.5 2021 08/01/21100% 92,255 (13,250) (27,258) 51,747 131.176% 67,879 33,940 (122) (3,382) 30,436 324,546 8 2021 02/01/22100% 95,023 (13,250) (28,213) 53,560 131.176% 70,257 35,129 (126) (3,500) 31,502 343,770 8.5 2022 08/01/22100% 95,023 (13,250) (28,213) 53,560 131.176% 70,257 35,129 (126) (3,500) 31,502 362,526 9 2022 02/01/23 Total552,282 (1,988) (55,029) 495,264 Present Value From 08/01/2012 Present Value Rate 5.00%404,262 (1,455) (40,281) 362,526 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Oak Hill II\TIF Runs\TIF Run - 12-6-11 -FINAL FOR TIF PLANEDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing DistrictPage 39
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Dep artment of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 40
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Oak
Hill II Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District is a contiguous geographic area within the City's
Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in th e TIF Plan, for the purpose of financing econom ic
development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District is in the public interest because
it will facilitate construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility which will increase
employment in the state, and preserve and enhance the tax base of the state.
Furthermore, the assistance being provided meets the requirements for assistance under M.S. Section
469.176, subd. 4c(d) of the Act, because:
• The private development to be assisted pursuant to the TIF Plan will create or retain jobs in the state,
including construction jobs;
• the development consists of c onstruction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility in
the City, and construction will commence no later than July 1, 2012;
• construction of the proposed development would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without
the tax increment financing assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF Plan; and
• the City will file the request for certification of the District by June 30, 2012.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact
that for several years the redeveloper has desired to build an office facility on this site that meets the
City's objectives for economic development, but has previously been unable to obtain financing for the
project. The location of the proposed development presents several geographic challenges, which elevate
costs of construction. The redeveloper has provided the City with a pro forma and other evidence that
without assistance, the redeveloper would be unable to construct the proposed development.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost
of construction, the difficulty in obtaining financing in today's credit market, and the fact that 50% of the
building will be built without a tenant make it unlikely that an office building will be constructed in the
next 9 years without public assistance of som e kind. The City further determines that these sam e
challenges suggest that no other development of similar scope could reasonably be expected to occur on
this site without similar assistance being provided to the development.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 41
Appendix F-2
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of th e entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $3,050,600
(see Appendix D and the table below)
c. The present value of tax increm ents from the District for th e maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $404,262 (see Appendix D and the table
below).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$2,646,338 (the amount in clause b less the am ount in clause c) wit hout tax increment
assistance.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 700,000
New Market Value - Estimate 3,750,600
Difference 3,050,600
Present Value of Tax Increment 404,262
Difference 2,646,338
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 2,646,338
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conform s to the
general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District will
afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State
of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and the developm ent of currently vacant and
underutilized land by a private business.
EDA Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District Page 42
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 3, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs convened the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmember absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), City Attorney (Mr. Scott).
1a. Roll Call
2. Freight Rail Relocation Project - Closed Executive Session
The City Council met in closed executive session with the City Attorney to discuss
pending litigation relating to the City’s appeal of Mn/DOT’s negative declaration
regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the MN&S Freight Rail
Relocation Project.
3. Freight Rail Relocation Project
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
direct the City Attorney to affirmatively dismiss the E.A.W.’s appeal of the lawsuit.
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Omodt and Sanger opposed; Councilmember
Ross absent).
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 3, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmember absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Elected Officials Oath of Office
Judge Allen Oleisky performed the swearing in of the following elected officials of the
City of St. Louis Park for four year terms commencing January 3, 2012:
Jeffrey Jacobs – Mayor
Steve Hallfin – Councilmember At Large A
Jack Spano – Councilmember At Large B
1b. Pledge of Allegiance
1c. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes December 12, 2011
Councilmember Mavity requested that a paragraph be added after the eighth paragraph on
page 4 that states “It was the consensus of the City Council to pursue improvements at
the Beltline crossing that include (1) making crossing rules at this location consistent
with those at the Wooddale crossing, (2) creating or painting a pedestrian crosswalk at
this location, and (3) exploring the feasibility of additional safety features at this location
including a raised crosswalk and HAWK signaling.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special City Council Meeting/Closed Executive Session Minutes December
19, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes December 19, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-001 declaring 2012 City Council Meeting Dates.
4b. Approve Resolution No. 12-002 designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as
the City’s Official Newspaper for year 2012.
4c. Designate Magne y Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $708,000.00 for Water
Project – Water Treatment Plant No. 6 – Project No. 2010-1300.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-003 authorizing execution of an Agenc y Agreement
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation providing for the
Commissioner of Transportation to act as the City’s agent in accepting federal aid
funds for transportation related projects.
4e. Approve for filing Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October
6, 2011.
4f. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October
19, 2011.
4g. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Designating 2012 Mayor Pro Tem
Resolution No. 12-004
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-004 Appointing Susan Sanger to the Office of Mayor Pro Tem for the
Year 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2012
8b. Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Variances.
Ordinance No. 2409-12
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and explained that at the First Reading of the
proposed amendments, Council requested that staff work with the City Attorney to clarify
Section (3)(a). He advised that it was determined that the language contained in the First
Reading should not be amended because it reflects precisely what is contained in the
State Statute. He added that Council’s concern was the proposed amendment would vary
uses and the kinds of activities that could happen in a given zone, but as the City
Attorney pointed out, there is language in State law as well as the City’s Ordinance that
specifically states this cannot be done.
Councilmember Mavity asked if all of the conditions outlined in subparagraphs (a), (b),
(c), and (d) in each of Sections (3) and (4) must be met before granting a variance request
or whether an applicant need only meet one condition in order to be granted a variance.
Mr. Scott advised that all of the conditions outlined in subparagraphs (a) (b), (c), and (d)
in each of Sections (3) and (4) must be met before granting a variance request. He stated
that the word “and” should be added at the end of subparagraphs in each of these sections
to make it clear that all these conditions must be met. He added that Council can approve
the Second Reading with direction to staff to revise subparagraphs (a) (b), (c), and (d) in
both Sections (3) and (4) by adding semicolons and the word “and”.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2409-12 Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code Relating to Zoning by Amending Sections 36-4 Definitions and 36-33(d) Variances
and to direct staff to revise subparagraphs (a) (b), (c), and (d) in both Sections (3) and
(4) by adding semicolons and the word “and” at the end of each subparagraph.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs welcomed Councilmembers Steve Hallfin and Jake Spano.
Councilmember Santa reminded residents of the Vision Community Check-in on
Thursday, January 12th, from 6:00-9:00 p.m. taking place in Council Chambers and
encouraged everyone interested to take part in the meeting.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he visited Jack Jablonski, the Benilde-St. Margaret’s
hockey player who was injured on Friday night. He indicated that a gentleman who
suffered a similar injury 12 years ago also visited with Jack and is able to walk and went
on to play college hockey, and this lifted the spirits of everyone.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Ordinance Vacating a Landscaping Easement (Second Reading).
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Motion to waive second reading, Adopt Ordinance vacating a landscaping easement, and
approve the summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there a need to maintain the easement?
BACKGROUND:
Bader Development requests vacation of a landscaping easement to accommodate the Ellipse II
on Excelsior (e2) development plan. Easement vacations are approved by ordinance. The City
Council held a public hearing and the first reading of the ordinance on December 19, 2011.
The City acquired an easement for
landscaping purposes on the property at
3924 Excelsior Boulevard in 1997 as part of
the Excelsior Boulevard streetscape
improvements. The easement is 8 feet wide
and 54 feet long and lies between the
sidewalk and the parking lot. A raised
planter lies within the easement and helps
buffer the parking lot from the sidewalk.
The easement gives the City the right to
maintain the landscaping. The St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority now
owns the property, so the easement is not
currently necessary for the City to access the
property.
The proposed Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) redevelopment will change the character of the site,
screen surface parking from the street, place building entrances close to the sidewalk, and
provide privately maintained landscaping between the building and sidewalk. With construction
of the e2 project the landscaping easement is no longer needed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Ordinance Vacating a Landscaping Easement (Second Reading)
Attachments: Ordinance and Summary for Publication
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Ordinance Vacating a Landscaping Easement (Second Reading)
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE VACATING LANDSCAPING EASEMENT
3924 Excelsior Boulevard
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the landscaping easement proposed to be vacated has been
duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on
December 8, 2011 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and
has determined that the easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best
interest of the public that said easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described landscaping easement as now dedicated and laid
out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That particular perpetual easement for landscaping purposes originally dedicated
in Document Number 6743421, Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, described as follows:
A strip of land 8.00 feet in width over that part of the following described tract of
land, the Southeasterly line of which is a line drawn parallel with and distant
52.00 feet Northwesterly of the centerline of Excelsior Ave., as delineated on the
plat of “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota,” said tract being
described as follows:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6,
Township 28, Range 24 described as commencing at the intersection of the
southwesterly line of the plat of MINIKAHDA OAKS, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA” with a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet northwesterly from the
centerline of Excelsior Ave., as delineated on said plat; thence southwesterly
parallel with said centerline and its southwesterly extension 170 feet to the actual
point of beginning; thence continuing southwesterly along said parallel line
166.30 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence northeasterly at
right angles 166.30 feet; thence southeasterly at right angles to the point of
beginning.
Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from a line drawn parallel with and
distant 44.77 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly line of the above described
tract of land to a line drawn parallel with and distant 90.77 feet Northeasterly of
said Southwesterly line of the above described tract.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: Ordinance Vacating a Landscaping Easement (Second Reading)
reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over,
and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility
purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
First Reading December 19, 2011
Second Reading January 17, 2012
Date of Publication January 26, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect February 10, 2012
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Subject: Ordinance Vacating a Landscaping Easement (Second Reading)
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A LANDSCAPING EASEMENT
ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR
This ordinance states that a landscaping easement will be vacated for the Ellipse II on Excelsior
redevelopment.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2012
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 26, 2012
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Final Plat for six single-family lots known as Fretham
Twelfth Addition.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the Final Plat consistent with the Preliminary Plat and conditions of approval?
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Description of Request:
Requested is approval of the Final Plat to allow for the subdivision of two lots at 8910 and 8920
Minnetonka Blvd into six (6) new lots. Four lots would be serviced by Ensign Ave, and two lots
would share an access to Minnetonka Blvd.
Background:
The proposed subdivision involves two existing lots of 53,748 square feet and 22,691 square feet
for a total of 76,435 square feet (approximately 1.75 acres). The lots would be subdivided into
six lots ranging from 9,356 square feet to 14,480 square feet in size. Each proposed lot exceeds
the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and the minimum lot width requirements in the R-1
Zoning District. The minimum lot width requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 75 feet
measured at the front yard setback; for
corner lots, the minimum width is 85 feet.
The lots meet, or exceed, the minimum lot
width requirements.
Location:
The proposed subdivision is located north of
Minnetonka Blvd in the western part of the
City, and is fully within the Cobblecrest
neighborhood.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
Public Process:
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, September 13, 2011.
A public hearing was held at the Planning Commission on September 21, 2011. The Planning
Commission recommended unanimously (4-0) approving the preliminary plat with conditions.
The City Council approved the preliminary plat on November 21, 2011 with conditions. The
conditions approved by the Council have been attached as recommended conditions of the final
plat.
On January 4, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (6-0) approving the
final plat with conditions.
Subdivision Analysis
The proposed final plat meets the conditions required by the preliminary plat approval, and of the
general requirements of the Zoning Ordinance related to minimum required lot size (9,000
square feet), and minimum required lot width (75 feet for interior lot, 85 feet for corner lots).
However, other issues addressed in the application are reviewed below.
Lot Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth
1 14,480 sf 75 ft 145 ft
2 14,279 sf 75 ft 205 ft
3 12,595 sf 75 ft 170 ft
4 11,144 sf 86 ft 132 ft
5 9,103 sf 79 ft 121 ft
6 9,850 sf 100 ft 135 ft
Lot 1
A condition of preliminary plat approval is that Lot 1 shall have a minimum side yard setback of
7.5 feet along the west property line, and that it shall not have a walk-out basement. This
condition is included in the recommendation for final plat approval.
Street Access:
Lots 1-3 are proposed to front on Ensign Ave. Lots 4-6 are proposed to front on Minnetonka
Blvd. As conditions of the final plat, Lot 4 will be required to have a driveway access to Ensign
Ave only, and Lots 5 and 6 will be required to have a shared driveway access to Minnetonka
Blvd.
Street Dedication:
The final plat shows an additional seven foot right-of-way dedication to Minnetonka Blvd.
Sidewalk:
The Subdivision Ordinance requires the construction of a sidewalk along public streets included
in the subdivision. Construction of sidewalks are included as a condition of approval of the final
plat.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
Tree Replacement & Landscaping:
Tree Removal Summary
There are 33 significant trees totaling 506 caliper inches on the site.
12 significant trees will be removed totaling 212 caliper inches.
70 caliper inches of trees are required by city code to be replanted.
The applicant is proposing to plant the required trees in the following manner:
• Along Minnetonka Blvd to provide screening from the road.
• One boulevard tree will be planted in the front yard of each lot as required by city code.
• Along the east property line to provide screening between the subdivision and the
existing lot to the east and to provide vegetation around the storm water pond to enhance
the aesthetics.
Drainage and Utility Easements:
The final plat shows all required drainage and utility easements.
Stormwater Management:
Conditions of approval are included to require all necessary city and watershed permits for
stormwater management and erosion control.
Park Dedication / Trail dedication:
A condition of approval is included in the final plat for payment of park and trail dedication in
the following amounts:
• Park dedication: $9,000
• Trail dedication: $1,350
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission and staff determined that the final plat meets the conditions of
approval of the preliminary plat, and the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance
requirements for the R-1 Zoning District, and therefore, recommend the City Council adopt a
Resolution approving the final plat of Fretham 12th Addition with conditions.
Attachments: Final Plat
Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
Final Plat
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
Expanded View of Final Plat
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT OF
FRETHAM TWELFTH ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Lakewest Development Company, LLC, owner and subdivider of the land
proposed to be platted as Fretham Twelfth Addition has submitted an application for approval of
final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the
City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described as follows: commencing on the North line of said Section 18, at a point
920.53 feet West of the North Quarter corner of said section; thence deflecting
left 47 degrees, 11 minutes a distance of 54.55 feet in the Southwesterly direction,
thence deflecting left 82 degrees a distance of 288.36 feet to the Northerly line of
Minnetonka Boulevard as the same is laid out and traveled; thence deflecting right
120 degrees 05 minutes a distance of 109.79 feet along said Northerly line; thence
deflecting right 59 degrees 55 minutes a distance of 362.49 feet to a point in the
North line of said Section 18; thence deflecting to the right 120 degrees 11
minutes a distance of 192.30 feet along said North line to the point of beginning.
Also that part of Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows:
Commencing on the South line of said Section 7 at a point 920.53 feet West of the
South Quarter corner of said section; thence deflecting right 132 degrees 49
minutes a distance of 97.33 feet in the Northeasterly direction; thence deflecting
left 129 degrees 13 minutes a distance of 72.50 feet; thence deflecting right 36
degrees 24 minutes a distance of 60 feet; thence deflecting left 6 degrees 03
minutes a distance of 170 feet; thence deflecting left 73 degrees 08 minutes a
distance of 131.82 feet; thence deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 162.72 feet
to the South line of said Section 7; thence deflecting left 50 degrees 49 minutes
along said South line 192.30 feet to the point of beginning, which lies
Southeasterly of the Southeasterly boundary line of the following described tract:
All that part of Section 7, and Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, described as
follows: Commencing on the South line of said Section 7, and Section 18,
Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing on the South line
of said Section 7 at a point 920.53 feet West of the South Quarter corner of said
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
section; thence deflecting right 132 degrees and 49 minutes a distance of 97.33
feet in a Northeasterly direction; thence deflecting left 129 degrees and 13
minutes a distance of 72.50 feet; thence deflecting right 36 degrees and 24
minutes a distance of 60.0 feet; thence deflecting left 6 degrees and 03 minutes a
distance of 51.85 feet; which is the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described, thence continuing Northwesterly on last described line 118.15 feet;
thence deflecting left 73 degrees and 08 minutes a distance of 131.82 feet; thence
deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 162.72 feet to the South line of said
Section 7; thence continuing in Southeasterly direction along last described line
12.0 feet; thence Northeasterly in a straight line 177.5 feet more or less to the
point of beginning.
and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE ¼ of NW ¼) of
Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the North line of Minnetonka Boulevard as
the same is located and travelled across said NE ¼ of NW ¼, which point is 388.7
feet West at right angles from the East line of the Southwest Quarter of Section,
Township 117, Range 21, produced South; thence Southwesterly along said
Northerly line of Minnetonka Boulevard 509.79 feet to point of beginning of the
parcel of land to be described; thence Southwesterly along said North line
continued 181.16 feet; thence right 98 degrees 08 minutes parallel to the West line
of said NE ¼ of NW ¼ of said Section 18, a distance of 253.2 feet; thence in a
direct line 289.50 feet to point of beginning; said direct line making an angle of
59 degrees 55 minutes with the Northerly line of Minnetonka Boulevard.
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Fretham Twelfth Addition is hereby approved and
accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City
plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of
Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of
the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following
conditions:
a. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met. The pond shall be
shaped in a natural manner, and include landscaping.
b. The stormwater catch basin located at the north end of the Ensign Ave S cul-de-
sac shall be replaced by the applicant as required by the City Engineering
Department.
c. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
i. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
ii. All necessary permits must be obtained.
iii. All Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management permits must be issued.
iv. A minimum three foot tall orange construction fence shall be installed along
the top edge of the slope to protect the slope and vegetation. The fence shall
remain during the construction of the subdivision, and may be removed from a
lot after a house is constructed on the lot.
d. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
i. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
ii. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
iii. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
iv. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
v. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding
properties.
e. Lot 1 shall have a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet along the west property
line.
f. Lot 1 shall not have a walk-out basement.
g. Lot 4 shall have a driveway access to Ensign Ave S only.
h. Lots 5 and 6 shall have a shared driveway access.
i. Lots 1 and 2 shall have a drainage and utility easement that extends over the
entire slope, and encompasses the existing power line.
j. The pond shall be planted with water tolerant grasses, shrubs and trees.
k. All electrical and phone utilities servicing the new homes are to be placed
underground.
l. Sidewalks shall be installed along Minnetonka Blvd and Ensign Ave per City
Engineer’s requirements.
m. Park dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
n. Trail dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
o. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $1,000 to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat
is provided to the City.
p. Applicant shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, public
improvements, landscaping, repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities, and to
guarantee the provision of as-built drawings for all new public infrastructure to
the City.
q. The applicant shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to
the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required
herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in
Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under
Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive
showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged
with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 10
Subject: Fretham Twelfth Addition – Final Plat
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2012
B. Final Plat Fretham Twelfth Addition
Location: 8910 and 8920 Minnetonka Boulevard
Applicant: Lakewest Development
Case No.: 11-18-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He said the
final plat is virtually identical to the preliminary plat which was approved by the City
Council on November 21, 2011. The only change is the size of the easement which lies
across the back half of Lots 1 and 2. A condition of approval of the preliminary plat was
that the easement encompasses the entire slope along the back half of those lots. That
change is reflected on the final plat.
Mr. Morrison noted that all other conditions of approval of the preliminary plat have been
incorporated into the final plat approval.
Commissioner Kramer asked for details about the walk-out basement.
Mr. Morrison responded that there is about a 30 ft. grade change from the lake up to the
house. If they had to excavate for a walk-out basement it would cut into that slope, and
erosion would become a concern. It was decided it would best to keep it as a standard
basement and not interfere with the slope at all.
Commissioner Carper spoke about the location map on page 6 saying on the west side the
lot lines appear to continue into the lake as if the property owner does have ownership of
the lake bed at that area. Nothing similar to that appears on the east side of the lake.
Mr. Morrison said that the existing parcel does extend a little out into the lake so it’s
property lines are defined as shown on the plat. The parcel that is in the lake is actually a
separate parcel from the final plat. There was some discussion about whether there should
be a meandering property line along the shore of the lake as opposed to platting out the
small section that juts out into the lake. He added that it is pretty normal for lake
property to be platted out into the lake. It doesn’t mean anything substantial. DNR still
has jurisdiction over it.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Final Plat, subject
to conditions included by staff. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change
orders and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and
2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to grant the City Manager the change order authority requested? The
project will continue to be administered in accordance with the City’s existing policy.
BACKGROUND:
The overall Fire Stations construction is now 74% complete. The project is currently on
schedule and on budget. The Fire Department will likely move operations into the new Fire
Station No. 2 building (near Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Ave.) the first week of February and the
new Fire Station No. 1 building (Wooddale Ave. /Oxford St.) in March. The project will be
substantially complete in May 2012. A more detailed written report to City Council on the
work schedule and budget was provided on December 12, 2011.
The City Charter states that the City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and is
allowed to approve and execute contracts in compliance with State Law. The City’s internal
procedure/policy allows the City Manager to approve general purchasing up to a cumulative
maximum of $100,000. In the event the $100,000 amount is exceeded, City Council approval is
required. The City Manager is authorized to approve change orders on contracts up to a
cumulative total of $100,000.
On September 19, 2011, the City Council approved an increase in the City Manager’s authority
for the Fire Stations project from $100,000 to $200,000. Staff requests the City Council give the
City Manager authority to administratively approve up to an additional $100,000 (for a total of
$300,000) in order to expedite pending change orders.
Fire Station change orders costs to date:
Approved: $138,263
Pending: $161,316
Total: $299,579
Change order costs are paid from the contingency budget, which will still have $278,771
remaining if all the pending costs above are approved.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)
Attached is a letter from the construction manager, Kraus-Anderson Construction, which
provides a list and general description of approved and pending change orders that have occurred
since September 2011. Please note that the list excludes changes that were cost neutral or credits
to the project. The list also excludes change orders reported to City Council previously. The
attached list adds up to $211,749. The previous report listed $87,830 worth of change orders.
The total approved and pending change orders is $299,579.
Change orders and orders for additional work items and quantity adjustments are typical for any
construction project. The Fire Stations Replacement project has been no exception. The
magnitude of the project simply amplifies the number of changes and associated costs beyond
those of smaller projects. Examples of the changes include structural detail adjustments, changes
to materials, revised architectural details, ductwork and piping modifications, amounts and
quantities of specific items (most notably contaminated and unsuitable soils), etc. The issues
have been addressed with the contractors by Kraus Anderson with City concurrence and
approval in accordance with City policy.
Approval of this item allows the City Manager to authorize up to an additional $100,000 for
necessary changes on this project for a cumulative total of $300,000.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project is in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The project budget for
constructing both stations is $15.5 million. The sources of funds include $12.5 million in Build
America bonds issued in December 2010. The remaining portion will be paid with approximately
$3 million from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
Staff anticipates the actual project costs will be approximately $15.1 million based on the
construction bids received in March and the construction progress to date. The project continues
to be constructed within the original budgeted amount and costs continue to be monitored in
accordance with State and City regulations.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Change Order Summary (Kraus-Anderson Construction)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Project Administration - Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 3
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Project Administration - Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 4
Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4d
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – October 18, 2011
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Vice Chair Mueller called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Darla Aman, Lordia Fok, Joseph Glaab, Brian Johnson, Jeff
Mueller, Emily Goldstein
Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
Guests: Rashmi Seneviratne, PAC Representative, McKay Johnson
B. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Fok, to approve the
agenda as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
C. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Glaab, seconded by Commissioner Fok, to approve the
minutes of September 20, 2011, as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports - None
III. Human Rights Award
Ms. Olson passed out the guidelines and nomination forms for the Human Rights award. It will
be advertised in the Park Perspective. The Commission needs to decide on a deadline for
nominations.
Commissioner agreed to a December 16th deadline and would review nominations at the
December meting.
IV. Film Committee Update & Recap of “The Bully Project”
Commissioner Johnson indicated he attended a showing of The Bully Project that was held at
West End. It is definitely something that the Commission should pursue. It will be released in
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes of October 8, 2011
theaters on March 12, 2012. The Director wanted the DVD out shortly thereafter and will have
corresponding packets for schools and groups like us. For more information, the web site is
thebullyproject.com. He has been looking into other films as well and considering spring or
summer film showings.
V. Lecture Subcommittee Update
Ms. Olson noted that Chair Tomback sent an Email to the School Board about working with
them and they are working to schedule a meeting. She contacted CEAC and is also working with
the Youth Development Committee, made up of High School students, who are interested in
meeting and brainstorming ideas.
VI. MBA Bullying Project: Lordia Fok
Commissioner Fok indicated she is enrolled in an MBA program at the University of Chicago
and working on Power and Influence in Organizations. Their final project is to work with an
organization or person trying to implement a campaign where they can influence a group of
people and she thought it was a good fit to work with the HRC. Her team would talk with
commissioners and others and interview them and then run the data. The goal would be to
provide them with recommendations for what an interesting campaign would look like. A
concern had been expressed that they wouldn’t be able to get anything executed before the end of
her class, but that wasn’t a part of the final project.
Ms. Olson stated she sent an Email to the Deputy City Manager and she was OK with this if the
HRC was interested and asked the HRC to update council.
Commissioner Fok added it would be focused a lot on schools, because that is where the most
data is available. It would be a campaign proposal and they hope to come up with a kit that the
Commission could implement.
Commissioners felt it would be a good idea to get guidelines and direction.
Commissioner Fok stated the next step would be to put together questions and do an outline.
VII. New Business
Ms. Olson noted the West End was starting to do larger events and in December they are doing a
cultural and diversity celebration event. There will be more information to follow.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4e
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 2, 2011 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Gary Morrison, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of November 2, 2011
Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the minutes of November 2, 2011.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
(Commissioner Kramer abstained. Commission Person arrived at 6:01.)
3. Hearings
A. Amendment to Planned Unit Development
Location: 5200 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Park Village LLC and Reprise Design
Case No.: 11-24-PUD
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained the request is for a major
amendment to the Park Village Center Planned Unit Development for a new restaurant
building, overall site modifications within the PUD, and modifications to the McDonald’s
site. The PUD encompasses Granite City, the Mann Theater building which has a
number of restaurants on the south side, a Boston Market and Caribou Coffee building,
and a McDonald’s building.
Mr. Fulton discussed the two access points to the PUD site. He spoke about the shared
parking agreement with Park Nicollet.
Commissioner Robertson asked how new signage will work with the overall allowed
signage for the PUD.
Mr. Fulton responded that signage is regulated on a site with multiple tenants based on
the frontage of the buildings. The applicant is proposing a new monument sign. Signage
plans are typically approved outside of PUD approval.
Commissioner Carper asked if there are sidewalks adjacent to the west side of the Mann
Theater and on the east side of Granite City that would facilitate movement to the back
parking lot.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
Mr. Fulton said there is currently a sidewalk on the west side of the theater building
which is service oriented. The primary north-south pedestrian sidewalk is to the east
side.
Commissioner Carper described evening rush hours at Granite City when the lot in front
of the restaurant is full and begins to move out to the east. With the loss of 56 parking
spaces, he said he would think there will be more pressure north of the Granite City
building. He said he was concerned about adequate pedestrian walkways.
Mr. Fulton said that concern will be raised with the applicant. The Planning Commission
could elect to add that as a condition of the recommendation.
Commissioner Carper asked about deliveries for the new building.
Mr. Fulton said the applicant could address that question.
Commissioner Carper asked if there would be a passageway on the east side of the
McDonald’s building which would allow traffic to flow freely adjacent to the ordering
lanes.
Mr. Fulton responded that was correct. He said it is expected there will be sufficient
circulation space at that location. He added there wouldn’t be an option to exit via the
drive-thru area.
Commissioner Person asked about pedestrian access to McDonald’s from the north.
Mr. Fulton said staff discussed this with the applicant and the City Engineer. He
indicated where pedestrian options will be added.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added that McDonald’s will be
adding new sidewalk to the north of their building. She said that improvement will help
pedestrians and lead people away from crossing at the drive-thru exit.
Commissioner Kramer asked about potential uses of the theater upper floor and how that
would affect parking. He asked about issues related to having a vacant building in the
area.
Mr. Fulton said the upper floor of the theater building would be required to be fully
secured, closed off and not accessible. The upper floor has no windows. The applicant
has stated it doesn’t have a practical re-use if it isn’t a theater and flattening out the
sloped floors isn’t practical either. The most practical use for the building itself would
be to fully re-use the first with the second floor remaining vacant.
Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects, said no specific tenant for the theater
building has been identified at this time. The second floor couldn’t be used for
warehousing or storage of any kind due to floor loads and the structure of the building.
Deliveries wouldn’t be any more intense than they are currently at the site. If deliveries
were made during business hours they would occur off to the side.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
Mr. Sperides spoke about Granite City parking. He said the intent of the developer of the
theater building is to keep Granite City’s parking as whole as it is currently.
Mr. Sperides said they propose to have the sidewalk connect to the east side of the
building as the grade change on the west side of the building is significant. The east side
sidewalk would also bring pedestrians to the landscaped area.
Brian Johnson, Reprise Design, architect for the McDonald’s building, spoke about the
truck service vehicle. He said it would come in from the south. Goods are conveyored
into the building close to the entrance. Going out, the truck template works so the truck
can continue forward and circulate all the way around the parking lot and out the same
wide entrance they entered, heading north. The truck driver could also back out the way
they came in. Typically services arrive at McDonalds at 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m.
Mr. Johnson stated that pedestrian traffic from the north will be directed around the
intersection to bring pedestrians to the west side to cross the street.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Sonja Almlie, 3924 Webster Ave. S., said her property faces directly toward Granite City.
She said she is one of the few residents on the west side of Hwy. 100 who was notified of
the proposed changes.
Ms. Almlie stated that when the original development was done by Frauenshuh and Park
Nicollet there quite a few issues with the original plan about the design of several
buildings and facilities as well as the landscaping in the area. Ms. Almlie stated she had
grave concerns regarding landscaping because trees have died and have not been
replaced. They’ve either been cut down or left dead. There is significant landscaping
that has not been replaced. She said when the original plan for landscaping came in it
was sub-code or substandard to what the city had required in the plan. When residents
started asking questions it was identified that it didn’t meet city standards and so
significant changes had to be made and there were some accommodations to reduce it.
Ms. Almlie said she is very excited about the new plan for additional greenery in that
area but she is also concerned as the existing landscaping along Granite City and Park
Center Blvd. is substandard.
Ms. Almlie said the lighting fixture on the west side of Granite City brings very high
luminescence to her side of the roadway, is very obvious and quite a deterrent to the
community. What concerns her about suggestions of changes on all of these properties is
increased luminescence. She said there is also a challenge with noise from garbage pick-
up at Granite City during times of less noise in the area. She’s concerned that the theater
property might have a restaurant or retail with a high degree of garbage and delivery
service. If there are more services at 3 and 4 in the morning towards Hwy. 100 there is
likely to be noise and problems there.
Ms. Almlie said when the original development was proposed there was concern about
lighting at Park Nicollet ramps with high luminescence that would affect the
neighborhood. Changes were made. She stated that other neighborhoods may have
concerns as well. The access to the theater building concerns her as there isn’t a
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
walkway designed between the theater building and the Granite City Brewery. There are
some challenges for people transferring through the different areas of the development.
Commissioner Kramer asked Ms. Almlie where her house is located.
Ms. Almlie responded that it is five houses north of the former Pawn America site.
Commissioner Kramer asked when Ms. Almlie could hear noise over Hwy. 100 traffic.
Ms. Almlie responded at about 3 and 4:00 in the morning the neighborhood can hear
garbage pick-ups in the development as Hwy. 100 traffic is light at that time.
Commissioner Kramer asked how the development lighting stands out from Highway
100 lighting.
Ms. Almlie said the location of the light, direction of the light and type of lighting
towards the homes makes it stand out. It is very visible light as it does not have a cover
over it to focus light down.
Ms. McMonigal said staff will look into all of the issues.
The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Person asked if landscaping on the plans was existing landscaping or
proposed landscaping.
Mr. Fulton said there is new landscaping associated with the proposal. He added that
staff will review the existing landscape plan for the site and make sure that any trees that
have died will be replaced and the site is in compliance with the approved landscaping
plan.
Commissioner Person asked if Granite City would be adding any signage.
Mr. Fulton said he didn’t believe any new signage was proposed for Granite City as part
of the current application.
Commissioner Person asked about ordinances regarding delivery time.
Mr. Fulton responded under a PUD or Conditional Use Permit there is the ability to
include that as a condition. Generally, the City has some noise standards that are
different for evening and daylight hours.
Commissioner Robertson said overall he likes the proposal. He remarked that comments
about it have been very clear. Information about landscaping and lighting was very eye
opening and he recommends that it be included in the conditions that all existing
landscaping be brought up to compliance. All existing and new lighting should be
brought into compliance. He remarked it is a tough site and it’s very clear that a lot of
work has been done to make it work as well as it seems to work, and it has to be done
carefully.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
Commissioner Morris spoke about notification of the public hearing. He said he assumed
a 350 ft. radius notification was done, but the site is pretty sheltered in its commercial
nature. He suggested being more diligent in the future about notifying neighborhood
associations surrounding these types of developments. He commented that the Planning
Commission may want to include expanding notification areas as an agenda item in the
future.
Chair Johnston-Madison remarked that because Ms. Almlie’s neighborhood is elevated
well above Hwy. 100, the impact from noise in the development does carry forward to
that neighborhood.
Ms. McMonigal commented that staff will review compliance with original approvals on
the site. Additional landscaping can be added through the PUD amendment. Staff can
check on the lighting.
Commissioner Kramer stated the design is good. He said the comments from the
resident should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Carper stated it’s a nice development being added to the site. He said he
is still concerned about the pedestrian access.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Major
Amendment to the PUD subject to conditions included by staff and subject to review of
existing conditions on the site meeting original approvals. Commissioner Kramer
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Ms. McMonigal stated that staff will review the comments that came up at the public
hearing, will respond to the citizen who brought up issues, and will address the issues in
the staff report and City Council meeting.
Commissioner Robertson suggested expanding the notification list for the City Council
meeting.
B. Zoning Change, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Location: 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Alberto Bertomeu
Case Nos.: 11-19-Z, 11-20-CUP, 11-21-VAR
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained the request is a rezoning
from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to C-2 General Commercial, a Conditional Use
Permit to allow motor vehicle service with a carwash, and a variance to reduce the
distance requirement between the carwash and adjacent residential property. Staff has
recommended approval of the rezoning and Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions.
Staff has recommended denial of the variance request as it does not meet the criteria of
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fulton explained that the project could move forward without
approval of the variance. The carwash would need to be modified to meet the setback
requirements.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
Commissioner Carper asked if it was feasible to relocate the carwash on the site.
Mr. Fulton replied that question could best be addressed to the applicant.
Alberto Bertomeu, applicant, distributed a handout of plans and drawings. He provided
background on his applications. He explained that his hardship concerns the storm sewer
pipe. He said there is no mention of the pipe in the property Abstract. It was discovered
by his engineer. He cannot build over the pipe. It limits the use of the site entirely.
Mr. Bertomeu said his choices are to try to find a compromise through his current plans,
sell the property, or use legal remedies.
Mr. Bertomeu spoke about the setback. He said he doesn’t know how else to develop the
site other than by the requested variance.
Mr. Bertomeu spoke about the carwash design which keeps cars and noise inside the
building throughout the whole process. He discussed the high efficiency dryers that will
be used in the carwash. He said he has held lengthy conversations about his proposal
with Bader Development and the management staff of the Ellipse on Excelsior
development across the street from his property.
Commissioner Kramer asked if there was a Plan B that would be satisfactory.
Mr. Bertomeu replied that there is no Plan B. Plan B would be to take legal action and
try to find a remedy to the pipe. Another option is that a chain store would buy the
property.
Commissioner Person asked if the applicant was proposing a second floor addition.
Mr. Bertomeu said he was not proposing a second floor.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was a similar type of carwash in the Twin Cities.
Mr. Bertomeu said there are similar carwashes that have multiple lanes, but no one
locally has the equipment. The equipment would be imported from Finland. Because
everything is very small in Finland noise is a very big issue. They have technology
which reduces noise and water. Detroit is the only city in the Upper Midwest where
there might be similar equipment.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
John Miller, 3550 France Ave. S., said he’s lived in his home for 58 years, has had a lot
of business with the City Council and has never had any problem with a staff report.
Chair Johnston-Madison acknowledged e-mails included in the staff report received from
Robb Bader, Ellipse on Excelsior; Adrianne Lebow, 3540 & 3544 France Ave.; Esta
Miller, 3947 Excelsior Blvd.; Paul Brown, 4500 Morningside Rd., and Martin Fowler,
3601 Huntington Ave.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
Commissioner Robertson said historically we look at distance in protecting residential
from certain uses. He said technology changes and the applicant has a proposal for a
different kind of carwash which eliminates noise through technology and design. He said
he didn’t feel a precedent would be set by granting the variance. He said the applicant
has met the intent of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect the adjacent property.
Commissioner Robertson stated he supported approval of all three applications.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked about the driveway easement.
Mr. Fulton responded that the driveway easement provides access for the residential
garage and also to a parking lot behind the office building west of the applicant’s parking
lot.
Chair Johnston-Madison said she supported the variance request because of the reasons
stated by Commissioner Robertson and also related to the residential garage. She said
she hoped more screening could be added for more privacy.
Commissioner Morris said the variance is about sight line and noise abatement. It
involves one property owner with the orientation of the house and the garage. He
supported the variance with the condition of a green fence or trees which would screen
and create a noise abatement barrier to the residential property. We want commercial
development, we want economic development and we want to protect residents from
unnecessary light, noise and activity.
Commissioner Kramer stated he was in favor of providing the variance. He asked about
the possibility of a variance that was conditioned on actual decibel reading of the
finished project.
Commissioner Morris responded that the investment in the structure would already be in
place.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed and understood but he was saying that the owner is
willing to make the investment and at the end prove that it is quiet. He said he wouldn’t
do it and he wouldn’t expect the applicant to do it but it would show his degree of
confidence about how serious he is about the project.
Commissioner Carper asked about decibel level standards.
Mr. Fulton responded that the standard is about 65 decibels. He added that it’s not a
measurement taken at the property line, it’s a measurement taken at any adjacent houses
immediately outside the house. It’s governed by state law.
Ms. McMonigal said it is a complicated measurement which has to be a constant amount
during a certain amount of time per day in order to be a violation. She said in this case it
would probably be difficult to get to that violation stage.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Bertomeu if he had engineering specification sheets
regarding decibel output. He asked if there was any modeling of decibel level at
different distances from the building.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2011
Mr. Bertomeu said he didn’t have that information but could provide it. He remarked the
points raised are valid. He stated that when the doors are closed the decibel noise cannot
escape the building. The issue is when carwashes open their doors prematurely with the
blowers going. He said he will not allow doors to open until the blowers are shut off.
Mr. Bertomeu showed a drawing of an internal structure inside the carwash with two
doors at the end where the blowers are located. It is like a garage within the carwash
with the noise going backward, not out.
Ms. McMonigal reviewed the proposed conditions for the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Morris said he would recommend approval of the variance based on the
new interpretation of hardship. There is a reasonable use of the property, the actual
residence is further back from the property line, and since it is private property we can’t
mandate this. But it’s conditional on the applicant making a reasonable effort to offer the
property additional landscaping or fencing screening. If a reasonable offer is made to
abate those issues, he thinks the applicant is in compliance with what the new ordinance
is saying about uniqueness and hardship.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Rezoning from C-1
to C-2, approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions, and approval of the
Variance; adding a condition of reasonable effort of the applicant, monitored by city
staff, to supply additional screening to the resident subject to the variance.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
A study session followed.
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 16, 2011 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes: None
3. Hearings
A. Preliminary and Final Plat, Amendment to PUD, Variances
Ellipse II (e2) on Excelsior
Location: 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Bader Development
Case Nos.: 11-28-S, 11-27-PUD, 11-29-VAR
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that a second
phase to the Ellipse on Excelsior development is being proposed. The “e2”
redevelopment is a five-story, 58-unit apartment building with structured underground
and at-grade parking.
Commissioner Carper said he was concerned about parking. He asked how many spaces
were in the leased area and how many spaces were being used there.
Mr. Walther said there are approximately 50 parking stalls available at the American Inn
site. The use fluctuates with 50 in use at peak. He explained that area has been
designated as valet parking only. Traffic counts by the parking consultant and the owner
indicate that when the valet lot is well used there are still spaces available on the surface
parking lot that could of have been used by customers. Mr. Walther said that neighbors
have noted that people are parking on France Ave. He commented that isn’t necessarily
because there isn’t parking available on the lot.
Commissioner Carper spoke about 28 spaces too few and not knowing what the
occupancy is of other parking available. He said he was concerned that there would be
more parking in the neighborhood with e2.
Scott Froemming, Walker Parking Consultants, said on the day he counted there were a
maximum of 45 cars on the surface lot. At that time there were approximately 80 cars
parked in the Ellipse parking lot, leaving 20 empty stalls in the Ellipse lot, as well as 17
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2011
empty stalls underground. An overage on the surface lot could be accommodated on the
Ellipse property.
Mr. Walther spoke about numbers from the parking study for the peak hour, peak day,
peak month (mid-December) which indicated parking provided is over the peak demand
projected and counted on the site.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the tandem spots in the basement. He spoke about
problems often encountered with tandem parking.
Robb Bader, Bader Development, said the tandem spaces will be reserved for couples
and roommates. He said they haven’t encountered problems with tandem parking in their
other properties, and wouldn’t expect any in a 58-unit building. On-site management is
always available should problems occur.
Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, spoke about the success of the project and now getting
the whole parcel pulled together with the second phase. He discussed valet parking and
the policy to park those cars at far spaces, leaving spaces around the restaurant available.
He said the neighbors have suggested signs indicating parking around the corner at the
development.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Wayne Kesti, 3332 France Ave. S., mentioned positive benefits of the development. He
said the challenge has been integration into the neighborhood. He said where there is
development adjacent to existing single family homes it is an issue for the entire city, not
just Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista.
He said this is a suburban community, not an urban community. There are 75 kids
within 77 homes in the neighborhood. He stated he was concerned that the city wasn’t
providing move-up housing and equity amongst all homeowners and property taxpayers,
though it professed to do so in its strategic documents and Vision.
Mr. Kesti stated that people are parking on France when they don’t see available parking
or don’t want to pay for valet parking. He said these are encroachment issues the
neighborhood was concerned about from the beginning and these are issues on a regular
basis. Mr. Kesti said 8-10 vehicles parked on France Ave. on a night is very common.
There are discussions with city staff about expanding permit parking which is really the
only option. He stated these are urban issues that have been created in St. Louis Park, a
suburban community.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Kesti if Ellipse residents are becoming part of the
neighborhood and if there were any other issues besides parking.
Mr. Kesti said the residents are great. He said his point was as the city continues to look
at development opportunities in St. Louis Park, it shouldn’t just talk about the developer,
the development and the code for number of parking spaces per unit. He said discussion
should include how it will impact and integrate with the existing community. He
continued by saying residents are speaking because parking was an issue with Phase I.
The ratio is the same for Phase II. One night was chosen to look at overflow parking.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2011
He said he doesn’t think there is enough parking in Phase II. The residents of the single
family homes and adjacent neighborhood have been impacted negatively by excess
parking whether it is overflow or choice.
Frank Steck, 4121 Randall, Minikahda Oaks neighborhood association president, said
he’s been a neighborhood resident for 20 years. The association is the oldest association
in the city. He said Mr. Kesti has been the neighborhood association liaison with the
Ellipse and the city. He spoke about the expanded parking permit process which will be
coming up in December. Mr. Steck spoke about St. Louis Park being an inner ring
suburb. Neighbors moved to St. Louis Park because they love the community and they
don’t want to see the integrity of St. Louis Park compromised. Mr. Steck said he likes
the Ellipse, but it hasn’t worked from a parking standpoint. He said Ellipse residents
have told him they have parking issues. They have told him they have one parking spot
per unit and they would like a second spot. Visitor parking is an issue. Some Ellipse
residents have told him that visitors or residents with a second car have parked at
Excelsior & Grand.
Mr. Steck spoke about parking and traffic issues and the lack of sidewalk on France Ave.
He said he is very concerned about the experience of the neighborhood for all the
residents. He wondered how the Ellipse will function five years from now when it is no
longer the new kid on the block. He said he believes parking spaces will be about 35
spaces short for the entire development once Ellipse II is completed. He said he is also
concerned about traffic and parking during the winter season. He suggested, as an
experiment, closing off the surface lot in December so that only 22 cars could park there,
as that is the expected overflow at Ellipse II. At the same time 8-10 cars won’t be
parking on France Ave. due to permit parking. See how that works.
Mr. Steck said the numbers show a certain amount of parking spaces/unit. A few spaces
can be removed because of transit and bike trail. Mr. Steck stated that the reality shows
there is not enough parking even though the numbers meet the requirement.
Commissioner Kramer asked what timeframe cars are parking on the street.
Mr. Kesti responded that in the last month, typically Thursday through Saturday between
5 p.m. and 10 p.m. is the heaviest, with 8 to 15 cars parked on France Ave.
Commissioner Kramer asked staff how many parking spots per unit are allowed.
Mr. Walther replied that there is one parking spot per bedroom, not one parking spot per unit.
Alan Floyd, 3400 Glenhurst, spoke about light intrusion into the neighborhood. He said
the original drawings showed densely planted, mature evergreen trees from the corner of
the development on France Ave. all the way around which would have provided very
effective barrier landscaping to light intrusion. He said currently light comes into his
living room from headlights of traffic coming into the Ellipse. The solution is to plant
trees as were agreed upon. Mr. Floyd said the existing trees are very sparsely planted,
immature evergreens, and small deciduous trees in front of a 6 ft. fence leaving a lot of
open space at the gap. He said it’s been exacerbated by the fact the boulevard was clear
cut all the way down to the park which now allows a clear, unobstructed view of the
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2011
backside of the Ellipse. The 6 ft. fence ends right at the point where cars turn in. There’s
a gap.
Mr. Floyd spoke about lighting on the building which intrudes on his property. Stairwell
lighting of bare bulbs is exposed by clear windows. This light glares down on the park.
When it snows this light is accentuated and the whole park glows from the development.
He said he often doesn’t need lights in his living room because the light glow is so bright.
Mr. Floyd spoke about noise issues. He said snowplowing has occurred in the middle of
the night. Parking lot maintenance occurred at 1:00 a.m. last spring. He remarked that
management at the building is not effective. He heard people yelling and screaming in
the parking lot. He asked an Ellipse resident what he thought of the noise and the
resident said the Ellipse is becoming a dormitory.
Chairperson Johnston-Madison asked staff and the developer to address light and noise
issues.
Mr. Walther said lighting was a concern prior to the development and immediately
following the development. He said the lighting ordinance applies only to exterior
lighting. There were issues with parking lot lights. The wrong type of fixture was put it
and the developer changed out those lights, and provided guards to eliminate glare
coming from individual lights. Testing has been done along the perimeter and it does
meet ordinance requirements. He said the only lighting which was added subsequent to
the development is down lighting near the sidewalk at the back of the building due to
security issues.
As regards landscaping, Mr. Walther said the Ellipse development did plant exactly what
they said they would plant. The only changes that did happen were along the very north
property line next to the fence with cooperation of the adjacent property owners, as
directed by the City Council when the development was approved.
Mr. Walther said most of the lighting issues either have been resolved to the extent of the
ordinance or are not regulated by the ordinance.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked if it was time to review plantings and make adjustments.
Robb Bader discussed the parking on France Ave. He spoke about guest parking which
is available. Mr. Bader said he met with Mr. Floyd and Nancy Rosen on November 15th.
He said the developer is willing to relook at the plantings. He said they have not heard
any complaints about noise.
Commissioner Person asked if shields could be put on the interior stairwell lights.
Mr. Bader said he will discuss design and safety issues for stairwell lighting with an
interior designer.
Nancy Rose, 3402 Huntington, said she finds the building to be an improvement for the
neighborhood but there are some integration issues. She is concerned about lighting.
She would like to look again at the present design for the drive coming into the new
building. She said it appears there is no planting at the end of that driveway at all.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2011
Mr. Walther spoke about a proposed retaining wall and a transformer that will be placed
in that area. He said there is landscaping on this portion of the driveway but it isn’t clear
what the species are.
Ms. Rose said Ellipse I architectural drawings indicated heavy plantings screening the
driveway coming into the underground garage, but that differed from the planting plans.
Residents were surprised that the planting did not have the effect shown in the architect’s
drawings. She said she currently gets lights in her windows from the parking lot as it is
currently being used, and assumes it will increase after Ellipse II is built. She stated
there should be some kind of screening, whether it is plants or a physical screen.
Chair Johnston-Madison closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to
speak.
Commissioner Shapiro commented that the developer can be asked to make
improvements to the interior lighting but the code won’t allow the city to mandate
interior lighting changes. He said the developer has expressed a willingness to look at it
but he didn’t think it could be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Robertson said the Commission should address what can be addressed.
He spoke about his own neighborhood which includes light from security lighting, traffic,
and cars parking in front of his house. This will occur in a suburban setting. He said
some screening is based on mature vegetation. Perhaps screening should be overplanted
at the start. He said interior lighting is not in the Commission’s purview. Architecturally
it is very hard to deal with glass, lights, and multiple stories, and this is life in the suburbs.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed with the comments made about lighting. He said
he is concerned about inadequate parking and wants to continue the dialogue about parking.
Commissioner Robertson said he’s concerned about the tandem parking numbers.
Commissioner Shapiro said he has been to the restaurant at peak times and has noted
empty parking spots when he went in and empty spots when he left. Some of the parking
on France may just be human nature to park where it appears to be closer to the
restaurant. Even if there were 30 extra parking spots people may decide to park on
France Ave. He spoke about his neighborhood where extra cars are parked in front of his
house and neighbors’ houses in the summer. He said that a suburb isn’t protection from cars.
Commissioner Carper said he wasn’t comfortable with the parking but it does meet the
zoning code. The only alternative would be in the future to change the zoning to require
more parking. He suggested using the tandem parking spots for valet parking. He spoke
about the effectiveness of permit parking. Commissioner Carper said it is a very good
development. He recommended that the developer come forward to City Council with
changes that have been discussed.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of a preliminary and
final plat with two subdivision variances, a PUD Major Amendment, a side yard
variance, and a rear yard variance; subject to conditions including modifying screening
for headlamps and looking more closely at how headlamps affect adjacent properties.
Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2011
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Variances
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 11-15-ZA
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She said
the State statute was changed in 2011 with the revision to essentially change the variance
language from requiring an undue hardship to requiring that a variance address a practical
difficulty. The amendments are being proposed to be more consistent with the State
statute. Many of the provisions are unchanged and it’s been rearranged for clarity.
Recommended language from the League of MN Cities has been used. She spoke about
the modified definition of a variance which provides clarity. The proposed ordinance
keeps the existing evaluation criteria to preserve the ordinance and the standards in the
ordinance.
Ms. McMonigal spoke about a provision in the State law regarding a variance for the
temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. She said the City
Attorney has recommended that we keep that language in the ordinance but staff has
asked for some more research on that. She distributed a hand-out with some more
wording changes from the City Attorney. Staff recommends including these changes in
the proposed ordinance.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked about language regarding use in Section 36-33(d) items
(a)(1) and (c)(1) on page 6 of the staff report.
Ms. McMonigal replied that perhaps (a)(1) could read any land use rather than any use.
Ms. McMonigal and Commissioner Robertson suggested clarifying item (c)(1).
Commissioner Robertson asked if there was a definition of temporary use in the family
dwelling provision in state law.
Ms. McMonigal said staff will look into that.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. She closed the public hearing as no
one was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the draft zoning
ordinance amendment pertaining to variances with changes to Section 36-33(d) Items
(a)(1) and (c)(1) as discussed, and that temporary use be defined. Commissioner
Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Adm. Secretary
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing and Resolution Approving the Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment
Financing District and Related TIF Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution establishing the Oak Hill II Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and approving the related TIF Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District to facilitate the construction of an office building of approximately 21,450 SF at 3340
Republic Avenue?
(The EDA will have considered the above action earlier in the evening.)
Anderson-KM Builders’ application for tax increment financing assistance was reviewed at the
October 24, 2011 Study Session where it was favorably received. At its December 5th meeting,
the City Council set a public hearing date of January 17th for the creation of the proposed TIF
district. A report on the potential business terms that would serve as the basis for a development
contract with Anderson-KM Builders was submitted at the January 9th Study Session. It is now
time to take the final step in the TIF process which is to formally authorize the creation of the
TIF district. Such authorization enables the EDA to use tax increment generated from the
proposed Oak Hill II project to Anderson-KM Builders as reimbursement for qualified costs
incurred in the construction of the proposed office building.
BACKGROUND:
Anderson Builders was a real estate development, design management, and construction
company based in St. Louis Park since 1999. In addition to the Oak Hill office building located
at 3501 Louisiana Ave. (near the intersection of Louisiana Ave and Walker St.) the firm built a
variety of office, industrial and retail facilities as well as churches and health care clinics
throughout the Twin Cities area.
The subject property is located in the Lenox Neighborhood at the northwest corner of Walker
Street and Republic Avenue; immediately east of Anderson Builders’ Oak Hill office building.
The subject property posed several development challenges as the site is small (¾-acre),
triangular in shape, required demolition of an old 6,400 SF commercial building, and has a 13
foot elevation change across the site. In 2007 Anderson Builders purchased the property and
planned to construct a 2-story, 15,000 SF office building in its place. The next year it removed
the former office building on the site. The EDA previously agreed to provide financial assistance
to the project but due to economic conditions and Anderson’s inability to obtain project
financing, the proposed office project was unable to proceed and the agreement with Anderson
was terminated.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
This past July it was announced that Anderson Builders and Minneapolis-based KM Building
Company, led by Greg Anderson and Steven Faber, respectively, had joined with real estate and
construction executives Kent M. Carlson and Arne Cook to form a new firm called: Anderson-
KM Builders. Carlson was formerly a senior executive with Ryan Companies. Cook is a real
estate development consultant who held senior management positions with CSM Corporation,
First Industrial Realty Trust and The Opus Group. Carlson is the new company's chief executive.
The four partners established Anderson-KM Builders to provide comprehensive building and
development services to local and regional clients. The new company employs 30 people.
Proposed Project
Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from Anderson Builder's location on Park Glen Rd
in St. Louis Park as well as KM Building's offices in Minneapolis. The firm plans to build a new
facility and consolidate its operations within a single location. The proposed office site is the
property owned by Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The proposed office building
would be approximately 21,450 SF; approximately 6,430 SF larger than the office building
Anderson previously planned to construct on the site. Like the former building, the new Oak Hill
II would be a multi-tenant, professional office building. Because the proposed new building
would be constructed into the side of the hill facing Republic Avenue it will appear as one story
off Republic and two stories off Walker Street (see attached Building Renderings). Oak Hill II
will be an attractive brick structure designed to complement the original Oak Hill office building
next door.
Under this latest proposal, Anderson-KM Builders will occupy approximately half the new
building (6,001 SF of office and 4,715 SF of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF will be built out
as office space and leased to one or more tenants. Oak Hill II will be marketed to general office
users and specialty medical users given its proximity to Methodist Hospital.
Project Schedule
Anderson-KM Builders plans to commence construction on the office building in spring 2012
and have it completed by the end of the year.
Current/Proposed Market Value
The subject property’s current assessed value is $700,000. Once the new building is complete
and fully occupied, the property would be assessed for $3.5 million by 2013.
Job Creation
As noted earlier, Anderson-KM Builders plans to consolidate its operations within the proposed
Oak Hill II building. Anderson Builders with its 15 employees would relocate from its Park
Glen location and KM Builders with its 15 employees would relocate from Minneapolis. In
addition, 25 jobs are anticipated to result from tenants filling the 2nd floor office space. Thus, a
total of 15 jobs are expected to be retained and up to 40 jobs are expected to be created in St.
Louis Park if the proposed project proceeds.
Request for Tax Increment Assistance
In order to pursue the above project Anderson-KM Builders applied for up to $300,000 in tax
increment assistance from the EDA to offset a small portion of the construction costs associated
with the proposed building. As a percentage of total project cost the requested amount of
financial assistance is approximately 7%.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
The project is not economically feasible without some public financial assistance. Anderson’s
request for TIF assistance is considered reasonable given the complexity, quality, projected total
value, and other economic benefits derived from the proposed redevelopment. The EDA’s
participation would leverage approximately $4.3 million in new investment.
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/City Council reviewed Anderson-KM Builders’ TIF application at the October 24,
2011 Study Session. The proposed project and application were favorably received and staff was
directed to work further with the company to negotiate business terms that would enable the
proposed project to move forward. At its December 5th meeting, the City Council set a public
hearing date of January 17, 2012 for consideration of the proposed Oak Park II Economic
Development TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing Plan on January 4th, as
required by state law, and determined it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
In order to provide the Redeveloper with the proposed tax increment assistance a new TIF
district must be formed. The proposed Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District (an
economic development district) is detailed in the attached TIF Plan. The TIF Plan was prepared
by the EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers & Associates. In a general sense, TIF plans may be viewed
as enabling legislation. They establish the proposed TIF district’s classification, geographic
boundaries, maximum duration, maximum budget authority for tax increment revenues and
expenditures, fiscal disparities election as well as estimated impact on various taxing
jurisdictions along with findings which statutorily qualify the district. The specific mutual
obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial
assistance are contained in the separate Contract for Private Redevelopment between the parties
(to be considered February 6th). Both the TIF Plan and the Redevelopment Contract need to be
approved in order for economic development or redevelopment projects involving tax increment
to proceed.
The proposed Oak Hill II TIF District consists of a single property: 3340 Republic Avenue along
with adjacent rights-of-way. The proposed TIF District is within the city’s Redevelopment
Project Area as is statutorily required. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated
Redevelopment Project Area gives the EDA/Council the authority to assist with all the
redevelopment actions necessary to implement the Oak Hill II project.
Feasibility and Duration of the Oak Hill II TIF District
The financial assistance to be provided to Anderson-KM Builders to facilitate the proposed
office project meets the requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District
as allowed under the 2010 State of Minnesota Jobs Act. It is estimated that upon completion the
proposed project will generate approximately $300,000 in tax increment (present value) over the
9-year term of the district.
TIF District Revenue Uses of Funds
It should be noted that the project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds (Section 2-10) of the
proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project budget.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Fiscal Disparities Election
In keeping with the City’s TIF Policy, the Oak Hill II TIF District will contribute to fiscal
disparities as opposed to the tax base of the City making the contribution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Authorizing the establishment of the Oak Hill II TIF District does not, in itself, commit the
EDA/City to any specific level of financial assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it
simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse Anderson-KM Builders for a portion of its
qualified project costs. The terms and amount of TIF assistance are specified within the
Development Contract with Oak Hill II 7100 LLC (Anderson-KM Builders) which is to be
considered at the February 6th EDA meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and
promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution Adopting TIF Plan
Oak Hill II TIF Plan Summary (see 011712 EDA Item 7)
Oak Hill II TIF Plan (see 011712 EDA Item 7)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1;
AND ESTABLISHING OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the
Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt
a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") and establish the Oak Hill II Tax Increment
Financing District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF
Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law,
including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The EDA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have
caused the Plans to be prepared.
1.03. The EDA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed
prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans,
including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District
No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of
and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission on January 4, 2012,
approval of the Plans by the EDA on January 17, 2012, and the holding of a public hearing upon
published notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include
data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings
and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the
Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the
same extent as if set forth in full herein.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
1.05 The Council recognizes that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
Subd. 3, clause b, there is a mandatory fiscal disparities contribution for the District, an
economic development district.
1.06. The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project Area, but is however,
modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification.
2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically
finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without
the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for
the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an
"economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12 of the
Act.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the
Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole;
and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the redevelopment or development of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. Findings for Use of the District to Provide Assistance Pursuant to Section
469.176, Subd. 4c(d) of the Act.
4.01. The Council further expects that the District will meet the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.476, Subd. 4c(d) (exempting the District from
manufacturing/warehouse/distribution use restrictions), because:
(i) the proposed development will create or retain jobs in the State (including
construction jobs), and construction of the project would not have commenced
before July 1, 2012 without the assistance provided through tax increment under
the TIF Plan;
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
(ii) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012; and
(iii) the City and EDA will request certification of the District by no later than June
30, 2012.
Section 5. Public Purpose.
5.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will result in increased employment in the state, and will result in preservation and
enhancement of the tax base of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons
described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment
assistance provided under the TIF Plan. A private developer will receive only the assistance
needed to make this development financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by
a developer are incidental and do not outweigh the primary public benefits.
Section 6. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
6.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Director.
6.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
6.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax
capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the
amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to
the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of
all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18
months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
6.04. The Economic Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a
copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - ____
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section
469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development
district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District is a contiguous geographic area within the
City's Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in the TIF Plan, for the purpose of financing
economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District is in the
public interest because it will facilitate construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot
office facility which will increase employment in the state, and preserve and enhance the tax
base of the state.
Furthermore, the assistance being provided meets the requirements for assistance under
Section 469.176, subd. 4c(d) of the Act, because:
• The private development to be assisted pursuant to the TIF Plan will create or retain
jobs in the state, including construction jobs;
• the development consists of construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office
facility in the City, and construction will commence no later than July 1, 2012;
• construction of the proposed development would not have commenced before July 1,
2012, without the tax increment financing assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF
Plan; and
• the City will file the request for certification of the District by June 30, 2012.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Oak Hill II
Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This
finding is supported by the fact that for several years, the Redeveloper has desired to build
an office facility on this site that meets the City's objectives for economic development, but
has previously been unable to obtain financing for the project. The location of the proposed
development presents several geographic challenges, which elevate costs of construction.
The Redeveloper has provided the City with a pro forma and other evidence that without
assistance, the Redeveloper would be unable to construct the proposed development.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The
City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of construction, the difficulty in
obtaining financing in today's credit market, and the fact that 50% of the building will be
built without a tenant make it unlikely that an office building will be constructed in the next
9 years without public assistance of some kind. The City further determines that these same
challenges suggest that no other development of similar scope could reasonably be expected
to occur on this site without similar assistance being provided to the development.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District
will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be
$3,050,600 (see Appendix D and F of the TIF Plan)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of
the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $404,262 (see Appendix D
and F of the TIF Plan).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value
increase greater than $2,646,338 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c)
without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District conforms to
the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to
the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a
whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and
the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and the development of currently
vacant and underutilized land by a private business.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of St. Louis Park
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics
can be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Proposed action: Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District ("District")
and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ("TIF Plan")
Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1,
which includes the establishment of the Oak Hill II TIF District.
Type of TIF District: An economic development district
Parcel Numbers: 17-117-21-42-0072
Proposed
Development:
The District is being created to facilitate construction of an approximately
21,400 square foot office facility in the City. Please see Appendix A of the
TIF Plan for a more detailed project description.
Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd.
1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the District will be 8 years
after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by
the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated
that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2023, or when the TIF Plan is
satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be
2022. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the
legally required date.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $70,258
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 10
Page 2
Authorized uses:
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that
may be expended:
Land/Building Acquisition ....................................................... $20,000
Site Improvements/Preparation .............................................. $150,000
Utilities ..................................................................................... $75,000
Other Qualifying Improvements ............................................ $172,556
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ............................................ $55,029
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ................................................... $472,585
Interest ................................................................................... $132,738
PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL ....... $605,323
See Subsection 2-10, page 2-5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization.
Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. It is estimated that the
City will only utilize 5% of annual increment.
Interfund Loan
Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment
fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from another
fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
4 Year Activity Rule
(§ 469.176 Subd. 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by approximately January 2015, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(§ 469.1763 Subd. 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended.
Any obligations in the District made after approximately January 2016, will
not be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit F of the TIF Plan
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 11
Page 3
MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
THE HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 12
Page 4
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 13
As of January 11, 2012
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
(an economic development district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: January 17, 2012
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 14
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax
Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .... 2-3
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-4
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-5
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-7
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................. 2-9
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-9
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-10
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-12
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-13
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-13
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-14
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-14
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 15
Appendix F
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... F-1
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 16
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the Oak
Hill II Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the City Clerk at the City of St. Louis Park. Other relevant information
is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 17
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Oak Hill
II Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing
district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This District is being created pursuant to M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 12, as modified by, M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 4c(d).
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is
being created to facilitate construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility in the City.
Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA expects to enter into a development
agreement with Anderson-KM Builders at the time of approval of the TIF Plan and development is expected
to occur in 2012. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 18
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
5. The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The proposed
reuse of private property within the District will be for a office building, and there will be
continued operation of Redevelopment Project No. 1 after the capital improvements within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 have been completed.
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The City or EDA may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or EDA only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The City of EDA may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The District is an economic development district as defined in M.S. 469.174, Subd. 12, as modified by M.S.,
Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d). In order to create an economic development district under general law (M.S.,
Section 469.174 Subd. 12), the EDA or City must find that the District is in the public interest because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations
to another state or municipality; or
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
(3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state.
In addition, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c provides that assistance from a general law economic
development district may not be used to provide assistance to development if more than 15 percent of the
buildings and ancillary facilities (determined on a square footage basis), are used for other than certain
specified purposes (largely manufacturing, warehousing and distribution facilities).
However, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) provides a limited-time exception to these general law rules.
Under this provision (originally enacted in 2010 legislature and extended in 2011 legislature), a City may
provide assistance to economic development districts, notwithstanding the normal findings required under
M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and notwithstanding the limitation on types of assisted development under
M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, subject to certain conditions.
To satisfy the requirement of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), the City finds that the following conditions
are satisfied:
(1) the project will create or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs, and
construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the
authority providing assistance under the provisions of this paragraph;
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 19
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
(2) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012;
(3) the request for certification of the district will be made no later than June 30, 2012; and
(4) the assistance will not be used for the development of housing.
In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
The City is creating the District is pursuant to M.S. Sections 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) in order to assist in the
construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility. If construction does not commence by
July 1, 2012, the City and EDA will not grant assistance unless the proposed facility meets the criteria in
M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a), and satisfies the findings required under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in
any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District
must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the
District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2023, or when
the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2022. The EDA
or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2011 for taxes payable 2012.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2013) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2012, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2012. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 20
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2013. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$95,023
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$13,250
Fiscal Disparities Contribution $28,213
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$53,560
Original Local Tax Rate 1.31176 EstimatedPay 2012
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)$70,258
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 8. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $75,012.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined that no building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. Any
refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision
does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only
upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table on the following page:
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 21
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $550,294
Interest $55,029
TOTAL $605,323
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $472,585. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-you-
go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded
indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate construction of an approximately
21,400 square foot office facility. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide
assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the
development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and
development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to
pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with
the District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $20,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $150,000
Utilities $75,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $172,556
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$55,029
PROJECT COST TOTAL $472,585
Interest $132,738
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $605,323
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Appendix D.
Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories by
modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF Plan, so
long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above. Further, the
EDA or City may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for activities (described in
the table above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of the Project
(including administrative costs, which are considered to be spend outside the District), subject to all other
terms and conditions of this TIF Plan.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 22
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, the EDA or City must calculate fiscal disparities using
the following method of computation:
(b) The following method of computation applies to any economic development district for which the
request for certification was made after June 30, 1997, and to any other district for which the
governing body, by resolution approving the tax increment financing plan pursuant to M.S., Section
469.177, Subd. 3, elects:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal
disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude
any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original
year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to
M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the
original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no
captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity
is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and
the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion
thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with
the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from
the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates.
The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax
capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax
generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the
original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax
increment of the authority.
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 23
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 24
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Estimated
2011/Pay 20112
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,253,423,199 53,560 0.0043%
City of St. Louis Park 49,781,486 53,560 0.1076%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 47,211,090 53,560 0.1134%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Estimated Pay 2012
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.487770 37.18% 53,560 26,125
City of St. Louis Park 0.455430 34.72% 53,560 24,393
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.254800 19.42% 53,560 13,647
Other 0.113760 8.67%53,560 6,093
Total 1.311760 100.00%70,258
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2012 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on estimated Pay 2012 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which
were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $550,294;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is expected to be minimal. The City does track all calls for service
including property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new businesses, police calls for
service will likely be increased. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of
itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City hire additional
officers.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. A building constructed to
current safety standards with automatic fire detection and suppression systems, such as the one
proposed, will significantly reduce service calls and protect human life and safety.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is
not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 25
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District
is not expected to contribute to sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $106,867;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $204,599;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 26
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the
county auditor. If an economic development district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the
determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 must be
documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only
modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the
parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's
original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the
original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s)
eliminated from the District.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 27
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately January
2015 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 28
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 29
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse
for the EDA or City should the development not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 30
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow
in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less
the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the
District and the use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082.Tax increments may not
be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by
Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105, telephone (651) 697-
8500.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 31
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
Newly-formed Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from office locations in St. Louis Park and in
Minneapolis. The full-service real estate development, design management, and construction company plans
to build a new office facility and consolidate its operations there. The proposed office site is the property
owned by former Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The proposed Oak Hill II office building will
be approximately 21,450 SF and two stories. Oak Hill II will be an attractive brick structure designed to
complement the original Oak Hill office building next door.
Anderson-KM Builders will occupy approximately half the new building (6,001 SF of office and 4,715 SF
of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF will be built out as office space and leased to one or more tenants. Oak
Hill II will be marketed to general office users and specialty medical users given its proximity to Methodist
Hospital.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 32
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 33
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF DistrictPage 34
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF DistrictPage 35
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcel listed below.
Parcel Number Address Owner
17-117-21-42-0072 3340 Republic Ave.Oak Hill 7100, LLC
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 36
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 37
12/16/2011Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Oak Hill IICity of St. Louis Park21,432 Sq/Ft OfficeASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:Economic DevelopmentMaximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 131.176% Pay 2012 PrelimDistrict Name/Number:Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)131.176% Pay 2012 PrelimCounty District #:State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)52.0000% Pay 2012 PrelimFirst Year Construction or Inflation on Value2012Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.17684% Pay 2012 PrelimExisting District - Specify No. Years RemainingInflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES:Interest Rate:5.00%Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-12Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)First Period Ending1-Feb-13First $150,0001.50%Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2012Over $150,0002.00%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2014Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Years of Tax Increment9Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2022Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)0.75%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res.)1.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio34.5021% Pay 2012 PrelimFirst $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate141.9450% Pay 2012 PrelimOver $500,0001.25%Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandBuildingTotal Of Value Used Original Original Tax OriginalAfter ConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value Market Value Market Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. Area/Phase1711721420072 City3340 Republic Ave 700,0000700,000100% 700,000 Pay 2012 C/I Pref.13,250 C/I Pref.13,250 700,0000700,000700,000 13,25013,250Note:1. Base value is for pay 2012 based upon review of County website on 9-13-11.2. Development is located in SD #283 and WS #3 BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Oak Hill II\TIF Runs\TIF Run - 12-6-11 -FINAL FOR TIF PLANCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF DistrictPage 38
12/16/2011Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Oak Hill IICity of St. Louis Park21,432 Sq/Ft OfficeEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2012201320142015PayableOffice175175 21,432 3,750,600C/I75,012100% 100%100%100%2014TOTAL3,750,60075,012 Subtotal Residential000 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.21,432 3,750,60075,012 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from Assessor.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxes TaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitOffice 75,012 25,881 49,13164,44836,736 39,0066,633 146,824 6.85TOTAL 75,012 25,881 49,13164,44836,736 39,0066,633 146,824Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.2. If tax increment in received in 2013,then the district will be one year shorter.Total Property Taxes146,824less State-wide Taxes(39,006)less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(36,736)less Market Value Taxes(6,633)less Base Value Taxes(11,384)Annual Gross TIF 53,064 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?TAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Oak Hill II\TIF Runs\TIF Run - 12-6-11 -FINAL FOR TIF PLANCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF DistrictPage 39
12/16/2011Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Oak Hill IICity of St. Louis Park21,432 Sq/Ft OfficeTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocalAnnual Semi-Annual StateAdmin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% ofTaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC CapacityCapacityIncremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% IncrementValueYrs.YearDate- - - - 02/01/13- - - - 08/01/13- - - - 02/01/14100% 75,012 (13,250) (21,309) 40,453 131.176% 53,064 26,532 (96) (2,644) 23,793 21,555 0.5 2014 08/01/14100% 75,012 (13,250) (21,309) 40,453 131.176% 53,064 26,532 (96) (2,644) 23,793 42,585 1 2014 02/01/15100% 77,262 (13,250) (22,086) 41,927 131.176% 54,998 27,499 (99) (2,740) 24,660 63,849 1.5 2015 08/01/15100% 77,262 (13,250) (22,086) 41,927 131.176% 54,998 27,499 (99) (2,740) 24,660 84,595 2 2015 02/01/16100% 79,580 (13,250) (22,885) 43,445 131.176% 56,989 28,495 (103) (2,839) 25,553 105,567 2.5 2016 08/01/16100% 79,580 (13,250) (22,885) 43,445 131.176% 56,989 28,495 (103) (2,839) 25,553 126,028 3 2016 02/01/17100% 81,968 (13,250) (23,709) 45,009 131.176% 59,040 29,520 (106) (2,941) 26,473 146,708 3.5 2017 08/01/17100% 81,968 (13,250) (23,709) 45,009 131.176% 59,040 29,520 (106) (2,941) 26,473 166,884 4 2017 02/01/18100% 84,427 (13,250) (24,557) 46,619 131.176% 61,153 30,577 (110) (3,047) 27,420 187,272 4.5 2018 08/01/18100% 84,427 (13,250) (24,557) 46,619 131.176% 61,153 30,577 (110) (3,047) 27,420 207,163 5 2018 02/01/19100% 86,959 (13,250) (25,431) 48,278 131.176% 63,329 31,665 (114) (3,155) 28,396 227,260 5.5 2019 08/01/19100% 86,959 (13,250) (25,431) 48,278 131.176% 63,329 31,665 (114) (3,155) 28,396 246,866 6 2019 02/01/20100% 89,568 (13,250) (26,331) 49,987 131.176% 65,571 32,785 (118) (3,267) 29,401 266,671 6.5 2020 08/01/20100% 89,568 (13,250) (26,331) 49,987 131.176% 65,571 32,785 (118) (3,267) 29,401 285,993 7 2020 02/01/21100% 92,255 (13,250) (27,258) 51,747 131.176% 67,879 33,940 (122) (3,382) 30,436 305,507 7.5 2021 08/01/21100% 92,255 (13,250) (27,258) 51,747 131.176% 67,879 33,940 (122) (3,382) 30,436 324,546 8 2021 02/01/22100% 95,023 (13,250) (28,213) 53,560 131.176% 70,257 35,129 (126) (3,500) 31,502 343,770 8.5 2022 08/01/22100% 95,023 (13,250) (28,213) 53,560 131.176% 70,257 35,129 (126) (3,500) 31,502 362,526 9 2022 02/01/23 Total552,282 (1,988) (55,029) 495,264 Present Value From 08/01/2012 Present Value Rate 5.00%404,262 (1,455) (40,281) 362,526 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Oak Hill II\TIF Runs\TIF Run - 12-6-11 -FINAL FOR TIF PLANCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF DistrictPage 40
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 41
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Oak
Hill II Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District is a contiguous geographic area within the City's
Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated in the TIF Plan, for the purpose of financing economic
development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District is in the public interest because
it will facilitate construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility which will increase
employment in the state, and preserve and enhance the tax base of the state.
Furthermore, the assistance being provided meets the requirements for assistance under M.S. Section
469.176, subd. 4c(d) of the Act, because:
• The private development to be assisted pursuant to the TIF Plan will create or retain jobs in the state,
including construction jobs;
• the development consists of construction of an approximately 21,400 square foot office facility in
the City, and construction will commence no later than July 1, 2012;
• construction of the proposed development would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without
the tax increment financing assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF Plan; and
• the City will file the request for certification of the District by June 30, 2012.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact
that for several years the redeveloper has desired to build an office facility on this site that meets the
City's objectives for economic development, but has previously been unable to obtain financing for the
project. The location of the proposed development presents several geographic challenges, which elevate
costs of construction. The redeveloper has provided the City with a pro forma and other evidence that
without assistance, the redeveloper would be unable to construct the proposed development.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost
of construction, the difficulty in obtaining financing in today's credit market, and the fact that 50% of the
building will be built without a tenant make it unlikely that an office building will be constructed in the
next 9 years without public assistance of some kind. The City further determines that these same
challenges suggest that no other development of similar scope could reasonably be expected to occur on
this site without similar assistance being provided to the development.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 42
Appendix F-2
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will
increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $3,050,600
(see Appendix D and the table below)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $404,262 (see Appendix D and the table
below).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council
finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than
$2,646,338 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment
assistance.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 700,000
New Market Value - Estimate 3,750,600
Difference 3,050,600
Present Value of Tax Increment 404,262
Difference 2,646,338
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 2,646,338
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District will
afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State
of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and the development of currently vacant and
underutilized land by a private business.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Establishment of Oak Hill II TIF District Page 43
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Community Recreation Facility Task Force Members.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the participants on the Community Recreation Facility Task Force.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council ready to appoint the selected members to the Community Recreation Facility Task
Force?
BACKGROUND:
At the November 28, 2011 Study Session the City Council provided feedback on the tour
recently conducted of three community centers and the makeup and formation of a task force to
assist the City Council with this item. At the December 12, 2011 Study Session Council
authorized staff to advertise and accept applications from persons interested in sitting on the task
force. Applications were received from 17 persons.
At a special study session prior to this meeting the Council will be reviewing the applications of
the persons who have volunteered to serve on the task force.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 17, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat and Final PUD and Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major
Amendment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Plat for ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR,
subject to conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for e2,
subject to conditions.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving the major amendment to the Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for Ellipse on Excelsior, subject to conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Are the final plat and final PUD for e2 consistent with the approved preliminary plat and
preliminary PUD?
• Does the City Council support the modifications to the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD that
facilitate the e2 redevelopment?
BACKGROUND:
Ellipse on Excelsior is a five-story, mixed-use building with 132 residential apartments and
16,394 square feet of commercial uses on the ground floor located at 3900 Excelsior Boulevard.
The development opened in 2010 and replaced Anderson Cleaners and Al’s Bar. Both the
residential and commercial spaces are fully leased.
Adjacent to Ellipse on Excelsior is the former American Inn hotel property located 3924
Excelsior Boulevard. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) purchased
the American Inn hotel and demolished the building in 2009 in preparation for redevelopment.
The EDA currently leases the lot to Bader Development for parking purposes.
Bader Development proposes a second phase to the Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment at 3924
Excelsior Boulevard. The proposed Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”) redevelopment is a five-story,
58-unit apartment building with structured underground and at-grade parking. The proposed
second phase does not include commercial uses.
The e2 redevelopment will be a separate project and separate PUD from the neighboring Ellipse
on Excelsior development. However, the two developments need to be coordinated to present a
unified environment. The two developments will share a driveway access and e2 will include
excess parking stalls for the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial uses.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Process:
On December 19, 2011, the City Council approved a preliminary plat, subdivision variance, two
setback variances, and a preliminary PUD for e2 that included modifications to the density,
ground floor area, floor area ratio, and building setbacks.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD major
amendment on November 16, 2011. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
final plat and final PUD for the e2 development on January 4, 2012.
To accommodate the e2 redevelopment, an 11-foot strip of land along the common lot line will
be transferred from the Ellipse on Excelsior lot to the e2 lot. This results in a reduced lot size for
Ellipse on Excelsior, which increases the density and reduces the building setback. A major
amendment to the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD is required to allow changes to the approved plan.
Also, the Ellipse on Excelsior PUD will be amended to acknowledge the 22 off-site parking
spaces provided in the e2 redevelopment for the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial uses.
Existing Conditions:
Current Zoning:
High Density Multiple Family Residential (RC)
Comprehensive Plan:
High Density Multiple Family (RH)
Parcel Size:
0.725 acres
Adjacent Uses:
West: Minikahda Court Apartments
North: Minikahda Court Apartments, Bass Lake Park
East: Ellipse on Excelsior, France Av.
South: Excelsior Blvd., gas station, offices
The existing property is nearly 100% paved. The hotel building was built up to the north, east,
and west property lines and the remainder of the lot was surface parking. Modest improvements
to landscaping in the front of the property were made by the City through the Excelsior
Boulevard streetscape project with above ground planters in the late 1990s. The site has
contaminated soils due to fill material imported for a previous development and petroleum from
underground fuel tank(s). The underground tanks have since been removed.
FINAL PLAT ANALYSIS:
The proposed ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR final plat is consistent with the approved
preliminary plat. The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the final plat
with conditions.
The proposed e2 site is unplatted property. In order to redevelop the property, the City Code
requires the lot to be platted. The ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR plat satisfies this requirement.
The final plat also proposes to transfer an 11-foot wide strip of land from the Ellipse on
Excelsior property to the e2 parcel. This increases the area of the e2 parcel from 0.725 acres to
0.773 acres, and it decreases the area of the Ellipse on Excelsior parcel from 2.216 acres to 2.168
acres.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
E2 FINAL PUD ANALYSIS:
The proposed final PUD is consistent with the approved preliminary PUD. The Planning
Commission and city staff recommend approval of the final PUD with conditions.
Zoning Analysis:
The following table provides a zoning compliance summary for the new apartment building at
3924 Excelsior Boulevard based on the RC – High Density Multiple Family Residence zoning
district standards and eligible modifications from the zoning standards that may be approved
with a PUD.
Zoning Compliance Table.
Factor Allowed/Required Proposed Met?
Use High Density Multiple
Family Residence
58-unit apartment building Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres, unless it is a
project of superior design
or achieves greater
compliance with
comprehensive plan goals and
policies
0.773 acres Yes
Density 75 units/acre with a PUD 75 units/acre Yes
Height 6 stories or 75 feet 5 stories, 60 feet Yes
Off-Street
Parking
62 stalls (e2) 108 stalls, including 22 stalls
designated for Ellipse on Excelsior
commercial use
Yes
Front Yard None required with a PUD 10 feet
(4 feet to stairs/accessible ramp)
Yes
Rear Yard
Variance granted by
Resolution No. 11-142
5.5 feet Yes
Side Yard
(East)
None required with a PUD 30 feet
Yes
Side Yard
(West)
Variance granted by
Resolution No. 11-142
6 feet Yes
Floor Area
Ratio
None with a PUD 2.1 Yes
Ground Floor
Area Ratio
In RC, 0.30 with a PUD 0.30 Yes
D.O.R.A. 4,041 square feet (12%) 4,188 square feet or 12.4% Yes
Landscaping 58 trees 48 trees Yes
559 shrubs 231 shrubs, 479 perennials
Alternative landscaping Rooftop patio (615 square feet) and
an at-grade flagstone patio off
lounge/lobby that partially screened
by a stone wall.
Stormwater Required city and
watershed standards
Stormwater management is provided
underground
Yes
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Architectural Design
Description:
The proposed building is five stories (60 feet) tall. On the Excelsior Boulevard elevation, the second
through fifth floors step back from the first floor elevation to improve the pedestrian-scale of the
building. The building materials and design are consistent with Ellipse on Excelsior. Five units on
the along Excelsior Boulevard elevation are loft units spanning the fourth and fifth floors. The
mix includes 13 studio units, 26 one-bedroom units, 12 one-bedroom with den units, 3 two-
bedroom units, and a two-bedroom with den unit. The average unit is approximately 720 square
feet.
Materials:
Building materials include stone, brick, stucco, glass, stucco panel veneer, and cast stone. The
ratio varies on each building elevation, but every elevation has at least 60% class I materials as
required by City Code. The front elevation has the highest percentage of class I materials (99%).
Overall the building provides 71% class I materials, and 29 percent class II materials. The
development meets and exceeds the City Code requirements.
Parking
The applicant amended the plan to provide four more parking stalls on the site. A car wash bay
in the underground garage was eliminated and converted to a parking stall. A change to the
slope of the underground garage driveway and revised striping increased the number of parking
stalls in the covered, at-grade parking area from 22 to 25 (22 of the 25 parking stalls will be used
for commercial/valet parking).
Access:
Access to the site will be directly from Excelsior Boulevard. This is a shared driveway with the
Ellipse on Excelsior development. The shared driveway has full access to Excelsior Boulevard
(left and right turns are allowed. There is a dedicated left turn lane from eastbound Excelsior
Boulevard. An existing driveway on the west side of the site will be closed as part of the
redevelopment.
Design:
The plan provides a combination of underground garage parking, surface parking covered by the
building (“commercial parking”), and uncovered surface parking. A summary of the parking
supplied in both the e2 and Ellipse on Excelsior developments is attached for your information.
The underground garage contains 74 parking stalls. Sixteen of the 74 parking stalls are tandem
stalls. Ten of the 74 stalls are designated compact parking stalls. Three of the 74 stalls are ADA
accessible, including one van accessible stall. The parking garage would be used by e2
apartment residents. Tandem parking would be assigned to roommates/couples.
Nine uncovered surface parking stalls are provided near e2’s north lobby entrance, including one
ADA accessible stall. These stalls are intended to be used primarily by e2 visitors and guests.
There are 25 parking stalls provided in a covered surface parking area. Twenty-two of these
stalls are being built to mitigate the peak parking demand generated by commercial uses in the
neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development. Of the 25 parking stalls, there are 6 pairs
configured as tandem parking stalls. Similar to current operations, Bader Development
anticipates a valet parking service for the restaurant would park customer vehicles in the covered
surface parking area.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Quantity:
The zoning code requires 1 parking stall per bedroom for multiple family residential buildings.
The e2 development has 62 bedrooms. The plan provides a total of 108 parking stalls.
Even without the 22 commercial parking stalls and without the 16 tandem parking stalls in the
underground garage, the e2 plan supplies more than the 62 parking stalls required by the zoning
code. Therefore, staff finds the plan meets and exceeds the zoning code requirements. Staff also
finds that the 22 commercial parking stalls are genuinely surplus parking that can alleviate the
pressure on parking during peak hours of demand at Ellipse on Excelsior.
Walker Parking Study:
An update to the Ellipse on Excelsior parking demand study was required by the City as part of
the application. Parking counts were taken on the evening of Friday, October 28, 2011. The
Walker Parking Consultants report concludes that the proposed parking supply at Ellipse on
Excelsior and e2 developments together will satisfy the peak demand of the two developments.
Easement and Parking Management Plan:
It is important to ensure that the 22 parking stalls on the e2 site remain available for use by the
Ellipse on Excelsior commercial uses. The proposed off-site parking, ingress and egress
agreements will be protected by permanent and recorded easements. Bader Development has
also submitted a Parking Management Plan for e2 that will be included as an Official Exhibit to
the planning case file. Amendments to the Parking Management Plan will require City approval.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The plan provides 12.4% DORA, which meets and exceeds the zoning code requirement. The
DORA includes a rooftop patio, a surface patio off of the lobby/lounge area, sidewalk
connections and adjacent landscaped areas.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan provides 45 of the 58 trees required on the site. It provides 226 of the 559
shrubs required. Also, there are 479 perennial plantings. The plan provides dense landscaping in
the available area. Plantings are concentrated along the perimeter of the site and around the
designed outdoor recreation areas. The plan includes the use of alternative landscaping features,
including a rooftop patio and a patio area off of the lobby/lounge. Staff finds the plan meets the
landscaping requirements.
As recommended by the Planning Commission, the landscaping plan was amended to add five
Black Hills Spruce trees at the north end of the driveway to help mitigate light impacts from
vehicle headlights.
Utilities
The City Engineer reviewed the plans. The grading and utility plans are acceptable.
Stormwater from the site will be stored underground. The proposed system meets the City’s rate
control requirements. The plan requires review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD).
Export of Soils
An estimated 18,270 cubic yards of contaminated and organic soils must be removed for the
construction. Approximately 1,074 trucks loads will be needed over the course of 30 work days.
The truck route would be from Excelsior Boulevard to Hwy 100.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
PUD Objectives:
The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the
proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”:
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
The building siting, massing, orientation, façade entrances, sidewalks connections and
landscape features provide integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project.
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
The site is served by Metro Transit routes 12 and 114. Route 12 is classified a “frequently
operating transit line” under the Zoning Code. The development maintains the pedestrian-
scale streetscape and character of Excelsior Boulevard. The new building will approach and
frame the public realm along Excelsior Boulevard and enhance the links to nearby bus stops.
3. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD.
The purpose of a travel demand management strategy is to spread the number of automobile
trips throughout the day, reducing the negative impacts that occur during peak travel times.
The mixed-use character of the Ellipse on Excelsior and e2 development as a whole satisfies
the travel demand strategies requirement.
4. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter
requirements:
The e2 plan meets the designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) requirement to provide 12%
of the lot area.
5. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The e2 development includes a site plan that provides enhanced gathering spaces, streetscape
elements, upscale apartments, attractive mostly class I building materials, and interesting
architectural features.
E2 PUD modifications:
The e2 application includes the following PUD modifications:
• Increased residential density from 50 units per acre to 75 units per acre.
• Increased Ground Floor Area Ratio from 0.25 to 0.30.
• Increased Floor Area Ratio from 1.2 to 2.1
• Reduced front (south) yard to 10 feet from the front line; and four feet for the stairways and
ADA accessible ramp.
• Reduced side (east) yard setback to 30 feet.
ELIIPSE ON EXCELSIOR PUD MAJOR AMENDMENT:
Bader Development requests two adjustments to previously approved Ellipse on Excelsior PUD.
Both changes result from the lot line moving 11 feet to the east. First, the yard between the
Ellipse on Excelsior building and the west lot line will be reduced from 29 feet to 18 feet.
Second, the slight decrease in lot area technically increases the residential development density.
The original approval allowed an increase in the residential density from 50 units per acre to 59.2
units per acre. The proposed change in the lot area will increase the density to 61 units per acre.
The Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the major amendment to the
Ellipse on Excelsior PUD, with the conditions listed in the attached resolution.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission January 4, 2012
• Resolution $pproving the Final Plat for ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR
• Resolution $pproving the Final PUD for e2
• Resolution $pproving the Major Amendment to Final PUD for Ellipse on Excelsior
• Ellipse on Excelsior
o Ellipse on Excelsior Landscape Plan Amendment
o The Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Management Plan
• Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2)
o The e2 Parking Management Plan
o Artist Renderings of e2
o e2 Architectural Plans
§ G000 Cover Sheet
§ AS100 Site Plan
§ AS101 Site Uses Plan
§ A100 Garage Plan
§ A110 First Floor Plan
§ A120 Second Floor Plan
§ A130 Third Floor Plan
§ A140 Fourth Floor Plan
§ A150 Fifth Floor Plan
§ A200 Exterior Elevations
§ A201 Exterior Elevations
o e2 Civil Engineering Plans
§ Final Plat
§ C201 Site Plan
§ C300 Grading Plan
§ C301 Erosion Control Plan
§ C400 Utility Plan
§ L100 Landscape Plan
§ L200 Landscape Plan
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 2012
C. Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development
Ellipse II on Excelsior
Location: 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Bader Development
Case No.: 11-28-S and 11-27-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said the final plat is
consistent with the approved preliminary plat. He noted two small changes since the
Planning Commission public hearing: one of the subdivision variances has been
eliminated; and, rather than providing no easement along Excelsior Blvd. it will provide a
4-foot easement.
Mr. Walther spoke about the landscape plan. There was a condition generated from the
Planning Commission based on neighbor comments for additional landscaping at the end
of the driveway in an effort to reduce or eliminate headlight spillage from cars that are
entering the underground garage or coming into the site. He said the applicant has
provided additional evergreen plantings at the end of the driveway.
Mr. Walther spoke about similar screening which will be provided to Ellipse on
Excelsior. These five additional evergreen plantings will be put in at a 10 ft. height which
is taller than the minimum requirement of 6 ft.
Mr. Walther reviewed the PUD modifications.
Mr. Walther stated that the 22 commercial parking spaces on the site that will serve the
Ellipse property will be protected by an easement and a parking management plan.
Commissioner Kramer asked if there is a city or developer contact person who can
address resident concerns about parking, headlights and screening.
Mr. Walther responded that Robb Bader, developer, has ongoing conversations with the
neighborhood. Residents can also contact the Community Development Dept. for follow-
up on issues. He said the neighborhood is working with the Public Works Department on
permit parking.
Commissioner Carper asked how the proposed landscaping meets the requirements.
Mr. Walther explained that the plan also includes alternative landscaping measures. He
said those are not trees or shrubs but they do relate to the landscape and the designed
outdoor recreation area (DORA). He said that includes the patio space provided off of
the main lounge on the ground level as well as the rooftop patio area. Those count as
alternative landscaping measures.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, commented that for dense, multi-
story buildings the ordinance is almost impossible to meet since the sq. footage of each
floor is used, not just site coverage.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Commissioner Morris said it appears that a significant amount of landscaping is taking
place in the DORA which makes it unusable. He asked if that eliminates the DORA
function.
Mr. Walther said as the DORA requirement has been applied it includes things like patio
spaces, sidewalk connections through and around the site, trail connections, and
landscaped areas that provide the amenity to those pedestrian connections. DORA and
landscaping are meant to work together and not be mutually exclusive.
Commissioner Morris said he thought DORA was an outdoor green space for picnics,
games, movement, etc.
Mr. Walther spoke about opportunities on the west side of the building and rooftop space
designed for both passive and active recreation.
Commissioner Carper asked if the intention of landscaping is to make a building more
amenable to the public or to provide green space.
Mr. Walther said landscaping could serve either purpose and there is flexibility in the
code as to how that is provided. Typically there is a balanced approach.
Commissioner Morris said he may want to restudy DORA. He said he is in favor of
approving the project.
Ms. McMonigal said a DORA discussion could be a study session item.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat and Final
Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions. Commissioner Carper seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF
ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Bader Development, subdivider, has submitted an application requesting approval
of a final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The land owners include St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (3924
Excelsior Boulevard, PIN 06-028-24-41-0003) and Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (3900 Excelsior
Boulevard, PIN 06-028-24-41-0072).
3. St. Louis Park City Council Resolution No. 11-141 granted a variance from
Subdivision Code Section 26-154 “Easements” to reduce the required width of a drainage and
utility easement. The standard width for easements along public right-of-way is 10 feet. The final
plat provides drainage and utility easement that is four feet wide along public right-of-way.
4. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the
plat of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with
and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said
plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension
170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence
Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point
of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
5. The final plat is in all respects consistent with preliminary plat approval granted
by Resolution No. 11-141, the City Plan, the regulations and requirements of the laws of the
State of Minnesota, and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR is hereby approved and
accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and
regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the
following conditions:
a. City Council approval of a request to vacate an existing landscape
easement (Doc. No. 6743421);
b. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid prior to the City signing the
Final Plat.
c. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure
cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the
building design and 100% screened from off-site.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owners and subdivider, who are the applicants herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of
this approval.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD FOR ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR (“e2”)
WHEREAS, Bader Development proposes to construct a 58-unit apartment building at
3924 Excelsior Boulevard named Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the RC High Density Multiple Family
Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development
(PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code was received on October 18,
2011 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the application was mailed to all owners of
property within 350 feet of the subject property, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plans at the meeting of
September 21, 2011, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on November 3, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the public hearing at the meeting of
November 16, 2011, and recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at the meeting of
January 4, 2012, and recommended approval of the Final PUD, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Bader Development has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development to construct a 58-unit apartment building on property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard,
and legally described as follows:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the
plat of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with
and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said
plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension
170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point
of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 11-27-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will
it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the
proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of
Section 36-367(b)(5). The specific modifications include:
a. Increased residential density from 50 units per acre to 75 units per acre.
b. Increased Ground Floor Area Ratio from 0.25 to 0.30.
c. Increased Floor Area Ratio from 1.2 to 2.1
d. Reduced front yard to allow a 10-foot building setback, and five-foot setback for
the exterior stairways and ADA accessible ramp.
e. Reduced side (east) yard setback to 30 feet.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 11-27-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development for a 58-unit apartment building at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Final PUD
official exhibits. The Official Exhibits shall include a Parking Management Plan.
2. The following requirements, as indicated in the official exhibits, shall apply to the PUD:
a. A maximum residential density of 75 units per acre.
b. A maximum of 58 residential units.
c. A minimum of 108 parking spaces.
d. A maximum building height of 60 feet.
e. A maximum ground floor area ratio of 0.30.
f. A maximum floor area ratio of 2.1.
g. A minimum front yard of 10 feet for the building and 4 feet for exterior stairs and
ramps (from southerly property line along Excelsior Boulevard).
h. A minimum side yard (from the easterly property line) of 30 feet.
i. Any amendments to the e2 Parking Management Plan shall require the approval
of City of St. Louis Park.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
3. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final PUD. The
development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary. The following issues have been identified as appropriate to
include in the PUD development agreement:
a. A list of all PUD modifications.
b. A list of public improvements to be installed at Developer’s expense.
c. An irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney protecting the
22 parking stalls to be used by the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial development
at 3900 Excelsior Boulevard.
d. A requirement for a performance guarantee in the form of cash or letter of credit
for 125% of the estimated cost of all public improvements, including fire
hydrants, on-street loading bay, street signs, and streetscape improvements along
Excelsior Boulevard, and for the required site landscaping.
e. A maintenance agreement for the Developer to maintain adjacent public
improvements, including the proposed on-street loading bay and streetscape along
Excelsior Boulevard.
f. An agreement for the Developer to continue to pay annual services charges for the
special services district in an amount equal to what would be the amount payable
by the property if it remained a commercial property.
g. A requirement that all trash handling and storage facilities shall be located inside
the building.
h. A requirement that utility service structures shall be buried; and if any utility
service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated
into the building design and 100% screened from off-site.
4. The following conditions shall be met prior to starting any land disturbing activities on
the site:
a. Proof of Recording the Final Plat shall be submitted to the City.
b. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the City for review.
c. The assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and owner.
d. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
e. A staging plan for construction shall be filed with the City.
f. A plan to manage parking during construction shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval.
g. All necessary permits must be obtained.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits:
a. The Developer shall sign the City’s Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
b. Final plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities, public improvements, and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and City
policies.
c. The Developer shall provide the required performance guarantee.
d. The proposed 22 shared commercial parking stalls shall be protected by an
irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy
of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60
days of the Final PUD approval.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
6. The Developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. Construction shall comply with all City noise ordinances. Construction activity
will be limited to 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. and
10 p.m. Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or national
holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto streets and
neighboring properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public
street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the
Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures have been taken to
ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following shall be completed:
a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the Official Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the Official
Exhibits.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
Official Exhibits.
d. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that all
such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. Painting of mechanical
equipment shall not be considered screening.
8. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within 48
hours.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 09-028 and 10-083
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION NOS. 09-028 AND 10-083 AND APPROVING A
MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED
MX – MIXED USE LOCATED AT
3900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Ellipse on Excelsior is a 5-story tall, mixed-use development that
includes 132 residential apartments and 16,394 square feet of commercial space that is located at
3900 Excelsior Boulevard within the MX – Mixed Use Zoning District having the following
legal description:
Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 09-028 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2009, which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a major amendment to the Final PUD and conditions were approved
regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 10-083 of the St. Louis Park City
Council dated August 16, 2010, which reduced the cumulative parking requirement of 313
parking stalls by 33 stalls (10.5%) to 280 parking stalls in order to accommodate a larger
restaurant and medical/dental clinic uses; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to the PUD conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC made application to the City Council for a major
amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance to allow an increase in the residential density and reduced rear yard
setback due to a proposed change to the lot size; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 08-36-PUD, 10-21-PUD, and 11-27-PUD and the effect of the applications on the health,
safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on
the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution Nos. 09-028 and 10-083, to add the amendments now required, and
to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 08-36-PUD, 10-21-PUD, and 11-27-
PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for
this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution Nos. 09-028 and 10-083 are
hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned
Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting a mixed-use development
at the location described above based on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits.
2. The following requirements, consistent with the official exhibits, shall apply to the PUD:
A. The maximum number of residential units shall be 132.
B. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be 280.
C. The maximum gross floor area used for restaurant shall be 5,050 square feet.
D. The maximum building height shall be 60 feet.
E. The majority of the first floor shall be used for commercial purposes.
F. The plan shall meet the MX District setbacks from the adjacent R2 zoning district.
G. All trash handling and storage facilities shall be located inside the building.
H. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be
buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building or landscaping
design and 100% screened from off-site.
3. Before starting any land disturbing activities on the site (excluding demolition of existing
buildings):
A. The developer and owner shall sign the assent form and official exhibits.
B. The developer shall submit to the City proof of recording the final plat with Hennepin
County.
C. The developer shall submit building material samples and colors to the City for
administrative review and approval.
D. The developer or developer’s engineer shall schedule pre-construction meetings at
mutually agreeable times with all parties concerned, including City staff, to review
the program for the construction work.
1. The developer’s general contractor shall present a parking plan for construction
equipment and vehicles, and workers’ vehicles, at the preconstruction conference
that minimizes or eliminates parking in the surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
2. The developer shall involve a neighborhood representative in the preconstruction
conference relating to the parking plan.
E. The developer shall obtain all required permits for the proposed work, including but
not necessarily limited to:
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
1. City right-of-way permits (required for any work within the right-of-way,
including utility work, curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveway aprons, parking bays,
road closures and sidewalk closures.
2. Hennepin County permits for all work within the County right-of-way.
3. NPDES permit.
4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits.
5. City erosion control permit (the City will require a copy of the watershed district
and NPDES permits prior to issuance).
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall enter into a Planning
Development Contract with the City that addresses, at a minimum, the following:
A. Installation and on-going maintenance at Developer’s expense of on-street loading
and streetscape improvements along all public streets, including the proposed
landscaped median in France Avenue. Construction plans for said improvements
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
B. Installation at Developer’s expense of relocating and abandoning public sanitary and
storm sewer mains in accordance with City approved design and materials.
C. Participation by the property owner in the special service district relating to
maintenance of streetscape improvement within the public right-of-way along
Excelsior Boulevard.
D. Installation and on-going maintenance of public artwork that will be located in the
plaza area at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. The minimum
financial contribution shall be finalized before the City Council takes action on the
Final PUD.
E. Performance guarantee (financial securities) in the form of cash or letter of credit for
1.25 times the estimated cost of installing public improvements, development
landscaping, and survey monuments.
F. Developer or owner cooperation, but not necessarily financial contribution, to
consolidate driveway accesses onto Excelsior Boulevard should the site at 3924
Excelsior Boulevard (American Inn) redevelop and provides an opportunity for a full
driveway access (not right-in, right-out only) to Excelsior Boulevard for both
properties.
5. The developer or owner shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents as required in the Planned Unit Development approval.
6. During construction the developer, general contractor and subcontractors shall comply
with the following requirements:
A. Construction activities involving the use of power equipment, manual tools,
movement of equipment, or similar activities shall be limited to between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activity shall occur on Sundays and holidays.
Limited exceptions to these construction hours may be permitted if the City issues a
noise permit.
B. The developer and general contractor shall implement and enforce a parking plan for
construction equipment and vehicles, and workers’ vehicles, which minimizes or
eliminates parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
C. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six
feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked
during non-working hours.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
D. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding
neighborhood service.
E. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not line up, park or idle on neighborhood
streets.
F. Vehicular traffic access on France Avenue shall be maintained at all times.
G. Pedestrian access along Excelsior Boulevard and to the existing bus stop shall be
maintained during construction. Any expected disruptions shall be limited in duration
and scope, and communicated to the City and County well in advance.
7. Before the City issues a final certificate of occupancy:
A. The Developer shall provide the City with a complete set of reproducible "as
constructed" plans and an electronic file of the "as constructed" plans, all prepared in
accordance with City standards.
8. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-
residential facades located in the Mixed-Use building facing Excelsior Boulevard and France
Avenue:
A. Façade Transparency. Windows and doors shall meet the following requirements:
1. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall
be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or
material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window
and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of
the interior.
2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet.
This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows
may be used to meet the transparency requirement.
B. Awnings.
1. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic
and vinyl awnings are prohibited.
2. Backlit awnings are prohibited.
C. Use of Sidewalk. A business may use that portion of a sidewalk extending a
maximum of five feet from the building wall for the following purposes, provided a
six-foot minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard and France
Avenue is maintained between obstructions on public sidewalks and provided that all
activity is occurring on private property:
1. Display of merchandise.
2. Benches, planters, ornaments and art.
3. Signage, as permitted in the zoning ordinance.
4. Dining areas may extend beyond five feet of the building, provided eight feet
minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue is
maintained between the obstructions on the sidewalk.
D. All wall vents and assorted fixtures shall be painted to match the color of the wall to
which they are attached.
9. The development shall comply with the following Fire Department requirements:
A. New on-site fire hydrants shall meet City specifications.
B. An existing hydrant is shown remaining at the corner of Excelsior and France. The
condition of this hydrant (and overall fire protection needs for the site) must be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
C. Fire standpipes shall be provided in east and northwest stairways.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 20
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
D. The fire sprinkler system shall be an NFPA 13 system zoned by the floor level. Zone
valves shall be in a location approved by the Fire Marshal.
E. The elevator shall have a back up generator per State of Minnesota elevator code.
F. Floor levels for the elevator shall be designated/labeled garage (-1), ground floor (1),
second floor (2) and etc.
G. The make up and exhaust fans in the garage level shall have fire department override
switches at a location approved by the Fire Marshal.
10. The development shall comply with the following Public Works Department
requirements:
A. The developer shall cap all existing water services to be removed.
B. The underlying soil conditions of the proposed relocation area for sanitary and storm
sewer mains shall be verified for adequacy.
C. The utility relocation construction work area extends into Excelsior Boulevard, and it
is expected that lane closures will be necessary. Work within the Excelsior
Boulevard right-of-way, or any lane closures, shall occur only with the permission of
Hennepin County. Hennepin County will likely require full restoration standards to
all roadway and other disturbances.
D. The proposed relocation of the sanitary sewer lift station wall panel shall be reviewed
and approved by the Public Works Utility Division.
E. The developer shall be responsible for all bypass pumping as needed during the
course of constructing the relocated sanitary and storm sewer mains.
F. The property owner shall be responsible for long term maintenance of the proposed
landscaped median in France Avenue.
G. The minimum sidewalk clearance width between obstructions (i.e. landscaping, light
poles, bollards, stairways, building, etc.) shall be six feet at all locations.
H. The plan shall comply with the recommendations of the traffic study prepared by SRF
Consulting Engineers and dated 10-30-08, including:
1. Provision of sufficient space for temporary vehicle parking in the proposed
Excelsior Boulevard loading area to prevent queuing onto Excelsior Boulevard.
2. Installation of proper signage to clearly identify the ramp as “Resident Parking
Only,” in order to prevent unfamiliar vehicles from entering the below ground
parking garage area.
3. Installation and use of secure access (i.e. card key) to the below ground parking
garage located at the garage entrance.
4. Installation of signage such as “stop” or “yield” signs, in accordance with
MUTCD, shall be provided on-site to prevent internal conflicts amongst vehicles,
as well as vehicular and pedestrian conflict areas.
5. Provision of adequate clearance and installation of proper signage for service and
emergency vehicles at the west end of the development where the surface parking
lot passes under the proposed building.
6. Installation and maintenance of neighborhood identification sign in the proposed
France Avenue median.
7. Installation of “No Outlet” sign(s) on northbound France Avenue.
8. Location and design of the proposed France Avenue landscaped median shall
provide sufficient clearance for all traffic on France Avenue to easily enter and
exit the development’s driveway (i.e., offset distance of the median and design of
median nose) and shall not restrict access into or out of the adjacent home north
of the proposed redevelopment.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 21
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
9. Consideration shall be given of vehicle and pedestrian sight distance and potential
for damage by vehicles and snow plows with respect to the design and location of
France Avenue gateway treatments.
10. Provision of at least 14 feet wide travel lanes on France Avenue (curb face to curb
face) in the vicinity of the proposed landscaped median in France Avenue to
provide adequate space for large semi-trucks and on-street bicycle traffic.
11. Installation of “No Parking” signs along France Avenue for the entire length of
the proposed France Avenue median.
I. All maintenance in the boulevard area (including streetscape and snow removal) shall
be provided by the property owner, or through the Excelsior Boulevard special
service district.
J. Street lighting units on Excelsior Boulevard must be identical to existing Excelsior
Boulevard units for uniformity and maintenance purposes.
K. Proper traffic control and safety in accordance with MUTCD (in addition to specific
County and City permit requirements for all work within the public right of way).
L. The developer shall maintain adequate separation between boulevard trees and
underground utilities. Boulevard landscaping plans and small utility plans are subject
to City Engineer review and approval.
11. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for obtaining a City license for the
underground parking structure.
12. Future commercial tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all City licenses (i.e.
restaurant), sign permits, and building permits to finish interior spaces.
13. Commercial and office tenants shall provide customer entrances from the plaza.
14. The plaza design and features shall maintain an open connection to the public sidewalk.
Temporary or permanent barriers that restrict access to commercial and office customer
entrances onto the plaza and connections to the public sidewalk shall be prohibited. Limited use
of temporary fencing surrounding tenant outdoor seating areas may be approved administratively
by the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee provided convenient access to the commercial
and office building entrances onto the plaza are maintained.
15. The developer shall submit a sign plan for the entire development to the City for
administrative review and approval by the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee prior to City
issuance of sign permits.
16. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 16, 2010 to incorporate the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
A. The developer and owner shall sign the assent form and official exhibits.
B. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits; such documents incorporated by reference herein.
C. The owner shall designate at least 19 parking stalls in the underground garage for
shared use by any combination of guests, employees or customers and manage
parking on the property to ensure on-site parking is fully utilized in order to avoid
overflow parking on public streets.
D. A lease agreement for potential overflow parking from the Ellipse on Excelsior
project shall be executed between the St. Louis Park Economic Development
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 22
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Authority and Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC for at least a one year term (September 1,
2010 – September 1, 2011).
17. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on January 17, 2012 to incorporate the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
A. The developer and owner shall sign the assent form and official exhibits.
B. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits; such documents incorporated by reference herein.
C. An irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney protecting an
additional 22 off-site parking stalls for use by the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial
development at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard.
D. Any amendments to the Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Management Plan shall require
the approval of the City of St. Louis Park.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 23
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
Ellipse on Excelsior Landscape Plan Amendment
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 24
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
December 2011
The Ellipse on Excelsior Parking Management Plan
Commercial Parking
1. The parking demand generated by Ellipse commercial uses and other guests
and visitors at times exceeds the parking supply on the Ellipse surface lot.
Therefore, City of St. Louis Park requires 17 parking spaces in the
underground garage to be designated for commercial uses and/or residential
guests in order to ensure parking availability on the surface lot and avoid
overflow parking on City streets.
2. Upon completion of the e2 building at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard, there will be
22 parking spaces in an enclosed garage on the e2 site that the commercial
users of the Ellipse have the non-exclusive right to use. The 22 off-site
parking spaces will be available for Ellipse commercial users during their
business hours.
3. No overnight Ellipse commercial employee parking will be allowed on the
Ellipse or e2 properties.
4. An on-site manager will be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week to
assist commercial tenants, residents, and neighbors with parking
needs/questions and monitor the parking rules and regulations.
Residential Parking
1. All residents must park in underground garage
2. All vehicles will be registered with management and given parking ID to
display
3. No inoperable or storage vehicles allowed.
General Parking Plan
1. On site management required to enforce parking policies in garage and on the
surface lot.
2. Site and garage signs to designate parking for limited periods of time and
specific uses to help manage parking
3. Commercial “Parking” sign is installed at west entry of property to help direct
commercial traffic into the Ellipse parking lot.
4. Signs stating “Additional parking around the corner,” or language to that
effect, will be provided in the Ellipse lot to direct self-parkers around the
corner from the busy restaurant entrance.
5. Amendments to this Parking Management Plan require approval of City of St.
Louis Park. The Zoning Administrator may approve changes as an
administrative amendment to the planned unit development or refer the
request to the City Council as a minor amendment to the planned unit
development.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 25
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
December 2011
The e2 Parking Management Plan
Commercial Parking
5. Upon completion of the e2 building, there will be 22 parking spaces in an
enclosed garage on the e2 site that the commercial users of the neighboring
Ellipse property at 3900 Excelsior Boulevard will have a non-exclusive right
to use.
6. These 22 parking spaces will be managed to give first priority to meeting the
parking needs of Ellipse commercial users during their business hours.
7. An on-site manager will be available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to
assist commercial tenants, residents, and neighbors with parking
needs/questions and monitor the parking rules and regulations.
Residential Parking
4. All residents must park in underground garage
5. All vehicles will be registered with management and given parking ID to
display
6. No inoperable or storage vehicles allowed.
General Parking Plan
1. On site management required to enforce parking policies in garage and on the
surface lot.
2. Amendments to this Parking Management Plan require approval of City of St.
Louis Park. The Zoning Administrator may approve changes as an
administrative amendment to the planned unit development or refer the
request to the City Council as a minor amendment to the planned unit
development.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 26
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment
e3924 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416Project TeamOWNERCONTRACTORFrana Companies633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343Contact: Mike BenedictPhone: 952.935.8600Fax: 952.935.8644E-mail mike@frana.comARCHITECTDJR Architecture, Inc.333 Washington Avenue NUnion Plaza, Suite 210Minneapolis, MN 55401Contact: Sheldon Berg612.676.2700612.676.2796 (fax)sberg@djr-inc.comSTRUCTURALMECHANICAL & ELECTRICALCIVILSite MapProject Notes1.2.3.All work shall comply with all applicable state andlocal codes and ordinances.Work is to be completed in accordance with alldocuments including drawings, specifications andconditions of contract for work.Refer to complete set of issued contract documentsincluding drawings and specifications of alldisciplines for applicable notes, abbreviations andsymbols. Contractor is responsible for coordinationof work. Notify Architect of any discrepancies beforeproceeding with work.Bader Development5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Contact: Scott BaderPhone: 952.540.8600Fax: 952.540.8601E-mail sbader@stevenscott.comHanuschak Consultants Inc26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaContact: Bill HanuschakPhone: 204.956.2200(fax): 204.956.1671E-mail hci@hanuschak.comSteen Engineering5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429Contact: Mark Brengman (HVAC) / Steve Youngs (E)Phone: 763.585.6742Fax: 763.585.6757E-mail: markbr@steeneng.com / stevey@steeneng.comEVS, Inc.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534Contact: Dave NashPhone: 952.646.0253E-mail: dnash@evs-eng.comSITE2LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTLANDMatters, LLCContact: Kathleen O'ConnellPhone: 612.598.5706E-mail: kathyaoconnell@gmail.comCIVIL DRAWING INDEXC100 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLANC200 PRELIMINARY PLATC300 SITE PLANC301 EROSION CONTROL PLANC400 UTILITY PLANC500 CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC501 CONSTRUCTION DETAILSPARKING & BIKE RACK CALCULATIONSPARKING REQUIRED - 1 PER BEDROOMPARKING PROVIDEDADDITIONAL RETAIL PARKINGSTUDIO131 BEDROOM412 BEDROOM4__UNITS5874962 BEDROOMS = 62 SPACESREQUIREDBELOW GRADEON-GRADE (VISITOR)TOTAL RESIDENTAIL PARKING PROVIDED83 (INCLUDING 4 HC SPACES)UNITS25 SPACES (VALET)GRAND TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED108BIKE RACKS REQUIRED: 1/UNIT + 1/10 PARKING SPACES58UNITSPARKING SPACES108TOTAL REQUIRED69 SPACES (58 + 108/10)TOTAL PROVIDED120 SPACES (116 BELOWGRADE + 4 ON-GRADE)ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416G000COVER SHEETApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2UNIT COUNTUNIT TYPEFLOORSTOTALFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTHUNIT A11 BEDROOM0554418UNIT A21 BEDROOM111115UNIT A2a 1 BEDROOM 10000 1UNIT A2b 1 BEDROOM 01100 2UNIT B11 BEDROOM +111003UNIT B2 1 BEDROOM + 01110 3UNIT B31 BEDROOM +000101UNIT B41 BEDROOM +000101UNIT B51 BEDROOM +011114UNIT C12 BEDROOM011002UNIT C22 BEDROOM000101UNIT D12 BEDROOM +000101UNIT S1STUDIO011114UNIT S2 STUDIO01111 4UNIT S3STUDIO011114UNIT V1CONVERTIBLE011103UNIT V2 CONVERTIBLE 10000 14151515958AREA-GROSS BUILDINGLevel AreaGARAGE 24220 SF1ST FLOOR 16855 SF2ND FLOOR 13702 SF3RD FLOOR 13697 SF4TH FLOOR 13675 SF5TH FLOOR 11266 SF93417 SFGENERAL DRAWING INDEXG000 COVER SHEETLANDSCAPE DRAWING INDEXL100 LANDSCAPE PLANL101 LANDSCAPE DETAILSELECTRICAL DRAWING INDEXE000 PARKING LOT PHOTOMETRIC PLAN1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING INDEX - STAFFREVIEW COMMENTSAS100 SITE PLANAS101 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - PROP USESA100 GARAGE PLANA110 FIRST FLOOR PLANA120 SECOND FLOOR PLANA130 THIRD FLOOR PLANA140 FOURTH FLOOR PLANA150 FIFTH FLOOR PLANA200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA201 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 27
UPDNUPDNDNDNDNDNRAMP UPCONCRETE PADLOADING/TEMP PARKING ZONELSLSCCBALCONYSHARED DRIVEWAY1BRUNIT1BR+UNIT1BRUNITFITNESS STUDIOFITNESSLOBBY/LOUNGEWMSTORAGERETAIL/VALETPARKING25 SPACESRAMP DOWN9 GUEST PARKING SPACESBALC92' - 7 3/16"108' - 9 5/8"6'-4 5/8"14'-8 3/4"STUDIOUNIT11'-0"20'-11"6'-2"5'-11"5'-6"24'-1"20'-10"27'-5"213459876LINE OF SECONDFLOOR WALL ABOVEPREVIOUSPROPERTY LINEREVISEDPROPERTY LINE4 BIKES5% MAX. RAMPAREA WAYVANTRANSFORMER, CTCABINET &EMERGENCYGENERATOREXCELSIOR BOULEVARDTYP.8'-6"TYPICAL18'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-4"8'-0"8'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"1'-4"8'-0"8'-0"22'-0"18'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-43/8"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"18'-0"18'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"KNOX FDKEY BOXKNOX FDKEY BOXKNOX FDKEY BOXN18'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"16'-0"8'-0"5% RAMP DOWN100'-4"FDFDFD99'-8"99'-8"99'-10"99'-10"99'-10"99'-10"STAMPED /STAINEDCONCRETEPATIOFDC020304010GRAPHIC SCALE17% RAMP DOWNFIRST FLOOR GROSS AREASITE AREAPARKING BELOW GRADEALLOWABLE AREA PER SPACEEQUATIONTOTAL EQUIVALENT SITE AREAGROUND FLOOR AREA RATIOGROUND FLOOR AREA RATIO16,799 SF33,687 SF74 SPACES300/SPACE300 SF X 74 = 22,200 SF33,687 SF + 22,200 SF =55,887 SF16,799 / 55,887 = .300NAME AREAARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416AS100SITE PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1" = 10'-0"1Site1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 28
UPDNUPDNDNDNDNNotEnclosedDORA252 SFDORA136 SFDORA2677 SFDORA1649 SFRESIDENTIAL6989 SFCOMMERCIALPARKING210 SFRESIDENTIAL9192 SFRESIDENTIAL7243 SFSURFACE PARKING195 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA34 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA979 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA71 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA68 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREADoraCOMMERCIAL PARKINGDORAMISCELLANEOUS AREARESIDENTIALSURFACE PARKING118 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA1270 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA2099 SFMISCELLANEOUSAREA308 SFDORA199 SFDORACOMMERCIAL PARKINGDESIGNED OUTDOORRECREATION AREA (DORA),INCLUDES 615 SF ROOFDECKMISCELLANEOUSGREENSPACERESIDENTIAL BUILDINGSURFACE PARKINGTOTAL SITE AREADORA / SITE USES6,989 SF4,188 SF4,833 SF11,051 SF7,243 SF33,690 SF20%12%15%32%21%NAME AREA % OF TOTAL SITEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416AS101ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - PROP USESApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1Site Dora1 Planning Submittal10.17.112 Planning Corrections11.09.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 29
UPUPUPA201FA201GA200D4A200D11234567ABCDEFGH2A3001A301140' - 0"173' - 0"1A3002A301RAMPUPPROPERTY LINEN STAIR031S STAIR0308ELECTRICALMECHEXHAUSTWALL MOUNTED BIKERACK, TYPICAL OF 40TRASH /RECYCLING024ELEVATORLOBBY022PARKING001WATER003MAINTENANCE002BIKE STORAGE00410 BIKES18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-0"16'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-0 7/8"8'-0"8'-6"9'-2"8'-6"123456789MAKE UPAIR UNIT1011121314151617181920212223242526272830313233343536373839404129VAN64666870725860625254564648504749515355575961636567697173424443451A3122A3103A3104A3102A3122A311AREA WELL8'-0"7'-8"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"CEILING MOUNTEDBIKE RACK, TYPICALOF 1324' - 0"27' - 8"27' - 0"27' - 0"27' - 0"27' - 0"13' - 4"3A3121/8"5"8'-6"8'-6"9'-2"16'-0"18'-0"746" BOLLARDS6" BOLLARDS8'-6"8'-1"8'-10 7/8"8'-6"ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A100GARAGE PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1GARAGE1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 30
UPDNUPDNDNDNDNDNA201FA201GA200D4A200D11234567ABCDEFGH2A3001A301A201EA201DA201C658 SFCONVERTIBLE106UNIT V2715 SF1 BEDROOM104UNIT A2Not Enclosed1 BEDROOM +103UNIT B1735 SF1 BEDROOM102UNIT A2a6936 SFPARKING1501095 SFSTORAGE140413/16"2'-7"2'-0"11'-0"39'-83/4"11'-25/8"25'-111/4"65'-11"66'-95/8"39'-103/8"1A3002A301A200D5TRASH124N STAIR131ELEC123640 SFFITNESS125486 SFSTUDIO1268139'-8"1701 SFLOUNGE/LOBBY120177 SFCONFERENCE121CORRIDOR127ELEVATORLOBBY122WOMEN128MEN129S STAIR130PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE15'-0"5'-0"9'-11 3/4"8'-9 1/4"14'-7 1/2"11'-3 1/4"5'-4 3/8"52'-11 7/8"16'-6 5/8"234WALL ABOVEWALL ABOVEGARAGE DOORENTRY TORESIDENTIALPARKINGGARAGE DOORENTRY TO RETAILPARKINGDASHED LINEINDICATES PERIMETEROF GARAGE BELOWDASHED LINEINDICATES PERIMETEROF GARAGE BELOW567891011121314151617181920212225 RETAILPARKINGSPACES18'-0"18'-0"40'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-43/8"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"1'-4"8'-0"19'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-3"20'-11"1A3122A3103A3104A3102A3122A3118'-0"3A312WALL ABOVEWALL ABOVEXS14"1'-73/4"2523248'-4"25'-0"STAND PIPESTAND PIPE35'-8 3/8"42'-0 13/16"19'-3 13/16"7'-8 5/16"33'-9 5/16"94'-0 3/8"42'-6 1/4"2'-0"136'-6 5/8"2'-0"94'-0 3/8"32'-3 9/16"10'-2 11/16"2'-0"10'-0"3'-3171/256"ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A110FIRST FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 31
UPDNUPDNA201FA201GA200D4A200D11234567ABCDEFGH2A3001A301A201EA201DA201CNot Enclosed1 BEDROOM +203UNIT B1705 SF1 BEDROOM202UNIT A2b1068 SF2 BEDROOM200UNIT C1714 SF1 BEDROOM204UNIT A2715 SF1 BEDROOM206UNIT A1494 SFSTUDIO207UNIT S2719 SF1 BEDROOM213UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM208UNIT A1834 SF1 BEDROOM +210UNIT B2719 SF1 BEDROOM212UNIT A11 BEDROOM +214UNIT B5718 SF1 BEDROOM201UNIT A1N STAIR231S STAIR230ELEC22213'-3 5/16"20'-2 3/8"10'-3 5/16"78'-1 11/16"7'-0"84'-05/8"11'-25/8"39'-83/4"13'-45/8"117'-81/2"158'-0"121'-9 5/8"6'-10"107'-0"17'-9 5/8"124'-9 5/8"1A3002A301A200D5565 SFCONVERTIBLE211UNIT V1STORAGE22544'-4"ELEV LOBBY221D1A350TRASH223CORRIDOR2208CANOPY BELOWALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPSTONE VENEERWALL BELOWPAVER PATIO,TYPROOFROOF1A312E1A3502A3103A3104A3102A3122A3113A312STAND PIPESTAND PIPE494 SFSTUDIO209UNIT S1989 SF428 SFSTUDIO205UNIT S326'-0"26'-5 1/2"3'-6"4 3/4"2'-0"ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A120SECOND FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 32
DNUPUPDNA201FA201GA200D4A200D11234567ABCDEFGH2A3001A301A201EA201DA201C833 SF1 BEDROOM +310UNIT B2719 SF1 BEDROOM308UNIT A1715 SF1 BEDROOM306UNIT A1714 SF1 BEDROOM304UNIT A2Not Enclosed1 BEDROOM +303UNIT B1718 SF1 BEDROOM301UNIT A11083 SF2 BEDROOM300UNIT C1719 SF1 BEDROOM312UNIT A1565 SFCONVERTIBLE311UNIT V1428 SFSTUDIO305UNIT S3ELEVATORLOBBY321990 SF1 BEDROOM +314UNIT B5N STAIR331S STAIR330705 SF1 BEDROOM302UNIT A2b719 SF1 BEDROOM313UNIT A1494 SFSTUDIO307UNIT S21A3002A301A200D5500 SFSTUDIO309UNIT S1D1A350TRASH323113 SFELEC322STORAGE3258CORRIDOR3201A312E1A3503A3104A3102A3122A3113A312STAND PIPESTAND PIPE26'-5 1/2"ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A130THIRD FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1THIRD FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 33
UPDNUPUPUPUPDNA200D11234567BCDEFGH1A301A201EA201DA201C1A3002A301A200D5D1A35081A312E1A3503A3104A3102A3113A312714 SF1 BEDROOM404UNIT A2Not Enclosed2 BEDROOM403UNIT C2705 SF1 BEDROOM +402UNIT B3718 SF1 BEDROOM +401UNIT B41083 SF2 BEDROOM +UNIT D1990 SF1 BEDROOM +414UNIT B5494 SFSTUDIO407UNIT S2500 SFSTUDIO409UNIT S1428 SFSTUDIO405UNIT S3833 SF1 BEDROOM +410UNIT B2565 SFCONVERTIBLE411UNIT V1719 SF1 BEDROOM412UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM408UNIT A1715 SF1 BEDROOM406UNIT A1719 SF1 BEDROOM413UNIT A1CORRIDOR420N STAIR431ELEVATORLOBBY421151 SFSTORAGE425ELEC422TRASH423S STAIR430STAND PIPESTAND PIPEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A140FOURTH FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere21 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11 1/8" = 1'-0"1FOURTH FLOORCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 34
DNDNDNDNDNDNICEA201FA201GA200D4A200D11234567ABCDEFGH2A3001A301A201EA201DA201C438 SFCOMMUNITYROOM511990 SF1 BEDROOM +514UNIT B5494 SFSTUDIO507UNIT S2OUTDOORPATIO1A3002A301A200D5719 SF1 BEDROOM512UNIT A1715 SF1 BEDROOM506UNIT A1714 SF1 BEDROOM504UNIT A2428 SFSTUDIO505UNIT S3500 SFSTUDIO509UNIT S1719 SF1 BEDROOM513UNIT A1CORRIDOR520745 SFLOFT400UNIT D1406 SFLOFT403UNIT C2416 SFLOFT402UNIT B3424 SFLOFT401UNIT B4151 SFSTORAGE525N STAIR531724 SF1 BEDROOM508UNIT A1D1A350ELEV LOBBY520S STAIR322113 SFELEC521TRASH52281A312E1A3503A3104A3102A3113A312644 SFSTAND PIPESTAND PIPEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A150FIFTH FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIFTH FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 35
1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"BRICK VENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWSSTONE VENEER3 COAT STUCCOSYTEMALUMINUM STOREFRONTCOPPER CANOPYBRICK VENEERALUMINUM SUNSHADEFIBERGLASSWINDOWSMETAL FASCIA& SOFFITMETAL REVEAL,TYP.ALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCAST STONE CAPMETAL PARAPETCAPELEVATOR & STAIROVERRUNPREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILINGTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"GARAGE88' - 8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"METAL PARAPET,CAPBRICK VENEERFIBER GLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSUNSHADESTUCCO PANELVENEERALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCAST STONEVENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWSALUMINUMSTOREFRONT3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSTOREFRONTMETAL REVEALS,TYPALUMINUMRAILING @ PARAPET CAPMETAL FASCIA & SOFFITTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"STONE VENEER3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSALUMINUMSTOREFRONTALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCOPPER CANOPYTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"AREA WELLPROJECTED 2'-0"ABOVE GRADEALUMINUM AWNINGCLASS 1 BRICK VENEER STONE VENEER 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM COPPER SIDING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSBUILDING MATERIAL RECAPCLASS 2 STUCCO PANEL VENEER CAST STONE VENEER71%29%ELEVATIONCLASS 1CLASS 2COMMENTSSOUTH99%1%WEST61%39%NORTH63%/60%37%/40%2ND NUMBER INCLUDES WALL AREA COVERED BY GARAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYEAST67%33%COMBINED ELEVATIONS 1/A200, 2/A201, & 4/A201SOUTH COURTYARD40%60%NORTH COURTYARD100%0%BUILDING MATERIAL BY ELEVATIONSBAHGFCDEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2008DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A200EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"D4SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - A 1/8" = 1'-0"D1WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - H 1/8" = 1'-0"D5EAST ELEVATION @ SOUTH END OFBLDG - B1 Planning Submittal10.17.112 Planning Corrections11.09.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 36
1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"GARAGE88' - 8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"CAST STONEVENEERALUMINUM RAILING,TYP.METAL PARAPETCAPSTUCCO PANELVENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMTEXTURED CMU3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSTOREFRONTMETAL REVEALS,TYPMETAL FASCIA &SOFFITTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"LINE INDICATES OUTLINE OFGARAGE ON ADJACENTPROPERTY. AREA BELOW LINENOT COUNTED IN BUILDINGMATERIAL CALCULATIONT.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSMETAL RAILING,TYP.STUCCO PANELVENEERTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"FIBERGLASSWINDOWSSTUCCO PANELVENEERSTONE VENEERCAST STONE CAPMETAL PARAPETCAPTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"METAL PANEL1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"BRICK VENEERSTUCCO PANELVENEERSTONE VENEERFIBERGLASSPATIO DOORALUMINUMSTOREFRONTALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 6 1/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 0"5TH FLOOR143' - 5 7/8"ALUMINUMSTOREFRONTSTONE VENEERCOPPER CANOPYFIBERGLASSWINDOWSFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMMETAL PARAPETCAPTRUSS BEARING152' - 5 3/4"T.O. PARAPET158' - 4 1/2"CLASS 1 BRICK VENEER STONE VENEER 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM COPPER SIDING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSBUILDING MATERIAL RECAPCLASS 2 STUCCO PANEL VENEER CAST STONE VENEER71%29%ELEVATIONCLASS 1CLASS 2COMMENTSSOUTH99%1%WEST61%39%NORTH63%/60%37%/40%2ND NUMBER INCLUDES WALL AREA COVERED BY GARAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYEAST67%33%COMBINED ELEVATIONS 1/A200, 2/A201, & 4/A201SOUTH COURTYARD40%60%NORTH COURTYARD100%0%BUILDING MATERIAL BY ELEVATIONSBAHGFCDEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2008 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOT FORCONSTRUCTION3924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A201EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"GNORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"FEAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"ESOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"DEAST COURTYARD ELEVATI 1/8" = 1'-0"CNORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION1 Planning Submittal10.17.112 Planning Corrections11.09.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 37
':%'.5+14$.8&
%1706;41#&01
27$.+%&'&+%#6+10 .+0'2#4#..'.9+6*6*'%'06'4.+0'1(':%'.5+14$.8&090'5'595921+061(%1//'0%'/'0659.;.+0'1(6*'2.#61(/+0+-#*#-5%'06'4.+0'1(':%'.5+14$.8&21+061($')+00+0)'#5'/'06%4&1%7/'0601'#5'/'06%4&1%7/'0601.16$.1%-'#5'/'06%4&1%7/'0601090'0'':6'05+101(6*'59.;.+0'1(6*'2.#61(/+0+-#*#-5'%140'45'%6+105'%140'45'%6+10'#56.+0'1(6*'5'5'%6+100'595'%*+5'.'&:5176*'4.;%140'41(.16$.1%-'..+25'10':%'.5+14/1569'56'4.;%140'41(.16$.1%-'..+25'10':%'.5+14&4#+0#)'#0&76+.+6;'#5'/'062'42.#6'..+25'10':%'.5+140146*.+0'1(6*'5176*9'56'4.;(''61(.16$.1%-'..+25'10':%'.5+145176*9'56'4.;.+0'1(.16$.1%-'..+25'10':%'.5+145'6/107/'06+2%#25'6/107/'06+2%#2&4#+0#)' 76+.+6;'#5'/'06&4#+0#)' 76+.+6;'#5'/'065*#4'&#%%'55'#5'/'06&4#+0#)' 76+.+6;'#5'/'06241215'&.+(656#6+10%10641.2#0'.'#5'/'06'0)+0''4+0)^5748';+0)^'08+410/'06#.^2.#00+0)8CNNG[8KGY4QCF5WKVG'FGP2TCKTKG/0Ä2JQPG ÄÄ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
VJKU'..+25'++10':%'.5+14JCUDGGPCRRTQXGFVJKUAAAAAFC[QHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9KNNKCO2$TQYP%QWPV[5WTXG[QT $[AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA%1706;4'%14&'4*GPPGRKP%QWPV[/KPPGUQVC+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJGYKVJKPRNCVQH'..+25'++10':%'.5+14YCUTGEQTFGFKPVJKUQHHKEGVJKUAAAAAFC[QHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACVAAAAAQENQEMAAAO/KEJCGN%WPPKHH%QWPV[4GEQTFGT $[AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&GRWV[5*''61(0'595%#.'+0(''66*'14+'06#6+101(6*+5$'#4+0)5;56'/+5*'00'2+0%1706;%114&+0#6'5;56'/0#&
#&,756/'06 9+6*#0#557/'&$'#4+0)1(0'(146*''#56.+0'1(5'1(5'%6+106049.')'0&&'016'5(170&+410/107/'06&'016'5(170&%+/&'016'55'6/107/'06City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 38
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 39
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 40
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 41
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 42
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 43
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Final Plat & PUD & Ellipse on Excelsior PUD Major Amendment Page 44