HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/11/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 14, 2011
(Councilmember Finkelstein Out)
6:20 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Canvass Results of the Municipal General Election held November 8, 2011.
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve the Resolution Declaring Results of the
Municipal General Election held November 8, 2011.
3. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 28, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. 2012 Budget Discussion
3. 7:05 p.m. Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule
4. 7:50 p.m. Update on Community Recreation Facilities Study Process
5. 8:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. Update on Amended and Restated Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty – The West
End Project
7. Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Program Changes
8. Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
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 Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Special Council Meeting
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Canvass Results of the Municipal General Election held on November 8, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve the Resolution Declaring Results of the Municipal General Election held
November 8, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes 205.185 sub. 3 states the canvassing of municipal general election results
must be conducted between the third and tenth days after the election. City Charter Section 4.08
requires the City Council to meet and canvass election returns within seven days of any regular
or special election and declare the results as soon as possible.
As required by Charter, the Resolution includes:
• Total number of good ballots cast
• Total number of spoiled or defective ballots
• The vote for each candidate with a declaration of those who were elected
• A true copy of the ballots used
• The names of the judges and clerks of election
• Such other information as may seem pertinent
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Election expenses are included in the adopted 2011 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Election Precinct Results
Write-In List of Names
True Copy of Precinct Ballots
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deput y City Manager
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011
RESOLUTION NO. 11 -_____
RESOLUTION CANVASSING ELECTION RETURNS OF
ST. LOUIS PARK – NOVEMBER 8, 2011
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Section 4.08, the City Council shall meet and
canvass election returns within seven days of any election and shall declare the results as soon as
possible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 205.185 sub. 3 the governing body of a city
conducting any election shall act as canvassing board, canvass the returns, and declare the results
of the election between the third and tenth days after the election; and
WHEREAS, the results prepared and certified to by the election judges have been
presented in summary form to the City Council for inspection,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1. The November 8, 2011 election returns having been canvassed, the votes received by each
candidate for city offices are as follows:
CITY OFFICES
Mayor
TOTAL
VOTES
% of
Vote
Jeffrey W. Jacobs 3,242 97.3%
Write-ins 89 2.7%
TOTAL 3,331 100.00%
Councilmember At Large A
Steve Hallfin 2,252 68.9%
Justin Kaufman 998 30.5%
Write-ins 20 0.6%
TOTAL 3,270 100.00%
Councilmember At Large B
Claudia Johnston-Madison 1,398 38.3%
Jake Spano 2,240 61.4%
Write-ins 13 0.4%
TOTAL 3,651 100.00%
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011
2. The number of spoiled ballots, the number of persons registered prior to the election and on
Election Day, the number of voter receipts, the number of absentee ballots, and the total
number of good votes cast in the city are as follows:
SPOILED BALLOTS 23
REGISTERED AT 7 A.M. 28,736
REGISTERED AT THE POLLS 103
TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS 28,839
VOTER RECEIPTS 3,587
ABSENTEE BALLOTS 208
TOTAL VOTERS 3,795
(Percent Voting) 13%
3. The Clerk and Judges of the election were as follows:
Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk
Debbie Fischer, Election Official
Tim Jones, Election Official
WARD 1
1-1, Benilde - St. Margaret’s
Lou Schoen - Chair
Mary Enz - Co-Chair
Judith Cook
Shirley Huiras
Thomas Morris
John Steinert
Judy Shapiro
Alice Tangney
1-2, Peter Hobart Primary Center
Todd Hintz - Chair
Margaret Marek - Co-Chair
Todd Kalk
Katherine Kloehn
Constance Nerheim
Kirsten Kurtz
1-3, Peter Hobart Primary Center
Kay Drache - Chair
Janice Bloom - Co-Chair
Ronald Adams
Rose Bratland
Ronald Adams
J. Hamilton Kurtz
Jeff Murman
1-4, Central Community Center
Jami LaPray - Chair
Nanette Malcomson - Co-Chair
Dolores Novotney
Nan Blomquist
Jeff Murman
Linda Hines
1-5, City Hall - Community Room
Barbara Ruhl-Chair
Mary Maynard-Co-Chair
Susan Wisely
Barb Osfar
Kris Stapleton
Lucille Thornsjo
Patricia Davis
WARD 2
2-6, City Hall - Council Chambers
Rick Marsden - Chair
David Brehmer - Co-Chair
Carol Kohler
Tom Lynch
Maureen Gormley
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011
2-7, St. Louis Park Rec Center
David Larson - Chair
Debra Wuebker - Co-Chair
Judith Adams
Kimball Justesen
David Richards
Richard Thorne
Kimball Justesen
Frank Wells
2-8, Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center
Jon Bloom - Chair
Loren Botner - Co-Chair
Lawrence Carlson
Joan Gerhardson
Dell Askegaard
2-9, Aldersgate United Methodist Church
Deb Bjorgaard - Chair
Julie Anne Manuel - Co-Chair
Charles Hubbard
Shammi Lochan
Annette St. Lawrence
Marguerite Krause
Charles Hubbard
Dave Walters
Carole Evers
WARD 3
3-10, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church
William Tape - Chair
Kate Burggraff - Co-Chair
Mary Jo Lochan
Lois Siegel
Jo Tennison
Betty Deane
3-11, St. Louis Park Senior High School
Judith Serrell - Chair
Janet Benson - Co-Chair
Francis Schmit
Lois Nalezny
Kelley Nelson
3-12, Lenox Community Center
Stephen Koepcke - Chair
Richard Steege - Co-Chair
Glenice Cannon
Carmen Marg-Patton
Ava Marske
Joan Lee
3-13, Aquila Primary Center
Michael Williams - Chair
Ken Huiras - Co-Chair
Anne Kertes
Caroline Turk
Irene Thoennes
Marie Grimes
Kathy Metzker
WARD 4
4-14, Westwood Lutheran Church
Jean Stulberg - Chair
Angela Fischels - Co-Chair
Beverly Fricke
Paul Tanick
Mary Wheeler
Helen Desens
Mary Johnson
4-15, Peace Presbyterian Church
Mary Hendrix - Chair
Peter Gardner - Co-Chair
Cookie Kulas
Sherm Stanchfield
Jason Smalley
4-16, St. Louis Park Junior High School
Mary Lou Christensen - Chair
Ross Plovnick - Co-Chair
Mary Kaye Conery
Patricia Palm
Martin Lee
Kathy McKay
Paula Maisel
Martin Lee
4-17, Eliot Community Center
Eunice Slager - Chair
Brenda Martens-Co-Chair
Bill Allen
Patricia Kremer
Elaine Savick
Absentee Ballot Board Judges
Melonie Danovsky
Debbie Fischer
Josephine Jacobs
Alice Tangley
Carol Evers
Lori Vail
Kathy Stehly
Mary Hendrix
Shirley Huiras
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011
4. True copies of the ballots are attached.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the
following candidates have been elected to four (4) year terms commencing on the first (lst)
regularly scheduled meeting of 2012:
Mayor : JEFFREY W. JACOBS
Councilmember At Large A : STEVE HALLFIN
Councilmember At Large B : JAKE SPANO
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 14, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park
Total % of WARD 1 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4
Office Votes Vote Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total 6 7 8 9 Total 10 11 12 13 Total 14 15 16 17
CITY OFFICES
Mayor
Jeff Jacobs 3,242 97.3% 871 341 151 144 125 110 962 35 341 331 255 712 242 180 98 192 697 107 186 303 101
Write-ins 89 2.7% 29 6 9 5 5 4 25 2 4 7 12 18 5 6 3 4 17 5 1 6 5
3,331 100.0%
Steve Hallfin 2,252 68.9% 582 255 105 93 65 64 762 25 262 279 196 457 157 99 64 137 451 68 125 205 53
Justin Kaufman 998 30.5% 307 85 57 56 63 46 204 11 80 51 62 250 88 75 33 54 237 35 66 101 35
Write-ins 20 0.6%3 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 10 4 3 1 2 4 2 0 1 1
3,270 100.0%
At Large B
Claudia Johnston-Madison 1,398 38.3% 422 113 86 97 78 48 375 14 146 129 86 353 118 115 34 86 248 36 70 106 36
Jake Spano 2,240 61.4% 574 254 96 80 63 81 719 26 225 256 212 427 139 84 69 135 520 81 132 234 73
Write-ins 13 0.4%4 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 4 1 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
3,651 100.0%
SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES
VOTE FOR FOUR
Nancy Gores 2,195 20.1% 587 231 101 103 79 73 648 28 242 203 175 497 178 125 69 125 463 35 134 220 74
Bill Levine 1,655 15.1% 475 165 99 87 64 60 397 19 138 135 105 385 136 82 53 114 398 27 116 185 70
Pam Rykken 2,377 21.8% 635 254 96 120 82 83 729 29 272 229 199 537 178 135 68 156 476 43 141 212 80
Julie A. Sweitzer 2,242 20.5% 610 233 103 120 78 76 639 29 245 200 165 518 182 126 72 138 475 34 146 231 64
Joe Tatalovich 2,407 22.0% 650 256 94 112 93 95 789 27 282 269 211 510 182 128 65 135 458 40 127 219 72
Write-In 51 0.5% 11 1 4 4 1 1 13 1 6 0 6 24 5 9 0 10 3 0 0 0 3
10,927 100.0%
VOTE FOR FOUR
Steven Adams 30 19.4%0 0 0 0 30 30
Wendy Donovan 36 23.2%0 0 0 0 36 36
Irma Mcintosh Coleman 26 16.8%0 0 0 0 26 26
Kristine Newcomer 33 21.3%0 0 0 0 33 33
Tina Soumare 30 19.4%0 0 0 0 30 30
Write-In 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0 0
155 100.0%
At Large A
OFFICIAL RESULTSLocal Election 11/08/11
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283
School Board Member
Hopkins ISD No. 270
School Board Member
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
Total % of WARD 1 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4
Office Votes Vote Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total 6 7 8 9 Total 10 11 12 13 Total 14 15 16 17
OFFICIAL RESULTSLocal Election 11/08/11
VOTE FOR FOUR
Jason Berger 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Cathy Cella 3 33.3%0 3 3 0 0
Sarah Patzloff 3 33.3%0 3 3 0 0
Ben Rider 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Leny K. Wallen-Friedman 3 33.3%0 3 3 0 0
Write-ins 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
9 100.0%
YES 4 44.4%0 4 4 0 0
NO 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
4 44.4%
YES 1 11.1%0 1 1 0 0
NO 3 33.3%0 3 3 0 0
4 44.4%
VOTER STATISTICS
SPOILED BALLOTS 23 5 2 2 0 1 0 8 0 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 7 0 3 4 0
REGISTERED AT 7 A.M.28,736 7,471 2,445 1,537 1,398 1,007 1,084 7,730 851 2,704 1,605 2,570 7,231 2,152 1,421 1,604 2,054 6,304 1,570 1,400 2,029 1,305
REG AT THE POLLS 103 19 4 3 2 3 7 38 6 12 10 10 35 9 7 6 13 11 2 4 2 3
TOTAL REGISTERED 28,839 7,490 2,449 1,540 1,400 1,010 1,091 7,768 857 2,716 1,615 2,580 7,266 2,161 1,428 1,610 2,067 6,315 1,572 1,404 2,031 1,308
VOTER RECEIPTS 3,587 984 368 186 174 129 127 1,076 39 354 383 300 761 236 204 109 212 766 122 197 345 102
ABSENTEE BALLOTS 208 52 19 4 6 12 11 51 3 30 13 5 69 38 6 5 20 36 3 16 8 9
Percent Voting Absentee 6%5% 5% 2% 3% 9% 9% 5% 8% 8% 3% 2% 9% 16% 3% 5% 9% 5% 2% 8% 2% 9%
TOTAL VOTERS 3,795 1,036 387 190 180 141 138 1,127 42 384 396 305 830 274 210 114 232 802 125 213 353 111
(PERCENT VOTING)13%14% 16% 12% 13% 14% 13% 15% 5% 14% 25% 12% 11% 13% 15% 7% 11% 13% 8% 15% 17% 8%
Edina Question 1 - Renewal of Expiring Portion of
Referendum Revenue Authorization
Edina Question 2 -Approval of School District
Capital Project Levy Authorization
Edina ISD No. 273 School
Board Member
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 7
First Name Last Name # Votes First Name Last Name # Votes
Any 1 Chris Johnson 1
Anyone Else 1 Todd Kalk 1
Blank 1 Steve Kaplan 1
John Basill 3 Bob Keller 1
Brett Bellows 1 Michael Kimlinger 1
Diane Blocher 1 Hello Kitty 1
Joseph Brandt 1 Shawn Kleinhaus 1
Jim Braunsen 1 Nancy Lapakko 1
Tim Brausen 1 David Levin 1
Claton Cadmus 1 No LRT 1
Jeff Carlson 1 Brian Madigan 1
Paul Carlson 1 Travis Malnar 1
Jack Cluck 1 Ryan McDonald 1
Zach Curtis 1 Shannon McKenzie 1
John Doe 1 Kyle Mcllary 1
Bill Donlon, Jr.1 Kyle McNary 1
Will Donovan, III 1 John Meyer 3
Nate Dunguy 1 No Name 4
Michael Edlavitch 2 Michael Okey 1
Anybody Else 2 James Olson 1
Andrew E.Engels 1 Paul Omodt 2
Murrey Feldman 1 Jim Rhodes 1
Mrs.Flanagan 1 Dean Ritzman 1
Chris Gaspard 1 Adam D.Rubenstein 1
Stephen Girard 1 Peter Runge 1
Elaine Gross 1 Sue Sanger 2
Scott Hagemeier 1 Joan Schaefer 1
Steve Hallfin 1 Hugo Searle 1
Sylvia Hamilton 2 Homer Simpson 1
Andrew J.Hart 1 Nick Slade 1
Mike Held 2 Lee Snitzer 1
Sarah Henkels 1 Andy Thrasher 1
John D.Hill 1 John Trummer 2
Wayne Hines 1 Jesse Ventura 1
Paul G. Howard 1 Jason Walberg 1
Rod Ingals 1 Randolph Weber 1
Gregory Jacobs 1 Hans Widmer 1
Christopher Jacobs 1
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION
WRITE-IN RESULTS
MAYOR
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 8
First Name Last Name # Votes First Name Last Name # Votes
John Boyle 1 Tim Brausen 4
Jeff Carlson 1 Nate Dunguy 1
Colin Cox 1 Murray Feldman 1
Nate Dunguy 1 Patrick Freese 3
Joel Hogan 1 Hello Kitty 1
Claudia Johnston-Madison 1 No Name 1
Steve Kaplan 1 Thomas O'Neil 1
Peggy Kist 1 Tim Rudolph 1
Hello Kitty 1
Tracy Leahy 1
Shannon McKenzie 1
No Name 1
Dan Nelson 1
Paul Omodt 3
Paul Scoffield 1
Bill Theobold 1
AT LARGE A AT LARGE B
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 8, 2011 GENERAL ELECTION
WRITE-IN RESULTS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 9
Precinct 1 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 10
Precinct 3 Ballot
Precinct 2 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 11
Precinct 5 Ballot
Precinct 4 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 12
Precinct 7 Ballot
Precinct 6 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 13
Precinct 9 Ballot
Precinct 8 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 14
Precinct 11 Ballot
Precinct 10 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 15
Precinct 13 Ballot
Precinct 12 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 16
Precinct 15 Ballot
Precinct 14 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 17
Precinct 17 Ballot
Precinct 16 Ballot
Special City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Canvass General Election Results 2011 Page 18
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 28, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on November 28, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 28, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 28, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 28, 2011
Study Session, November 28, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Eliot School Development Proposal – Community Development (30 minutes)
Preliminary review of the development proposal for the Eliot School Site.
3. Community Recreation Facility Tour Recap – Parks & Recreation (30 minutes)
Staff will be discussing the tour of other city recreation facilities to get comments and
feedback from council members. We will be discussing next steps and preparing for the
speaker coming in to talk to the council about trends in Parks and Recreation.
4. Annual TIF District Report (Ehlers) – Community Development (45 minutes)
Review the status, financial condition, debt management, and future value of the City’s tax
increment districts with the EDA’s financial consultant.
5. Future of Cable TV Study Update – Information Resources (45 minutes)
City Council asked city staff, with the help of the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission, to examine the future of Cable TV in light of probable declining revenue,
increasing competition, and new technologies in the marketplace. This report and
accompanying discussion will address these questions.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
7. October 2011 Monthly Financial Report
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
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:
2012 Budget Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is to assist with the Study S ession discussion regarding
the 2012 Budget and Final Property Tax Levy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is there other budget information that Council would like to review?
• Is the Council interested in setting aside $25,000 for a recreation study?
• Is the Council interested in setting aside $15,000 annually for contractual tree watering
services?
• Does the Council desire to allocate resources to the Employee Benefit or Housing
Rehabilitation Funds?
• Does the City Council wish to continue with a 5.00% property tax levy increase from 2011
as its 2012 Final Property Tax Levy? Or, does the City Council wish to certify a lesser
percentage increase as its 2012 Final Property Tax Levy?
BACKGROUND:
On June 20th, August 8th, August 22nd, and October 10th, 2011, staff met with the City Council to
discuss the 2012 Budget. Assumptions for the 2012 Budget included a pattern similar to 2010
and 2011; including a review of fees and charges where appropriate to fit with business costs,
maintain service delivery at current levels and hold expenditures flat if possible, with
adjustments for some modest growth based on essential business needs. Staff has recommended
setting 2% wage and benefit contribution for wellness (program adopted mid-year 2011 for
2012); utility rate increases, and continued long-range financial planning. Also included in the
2012 recommendations is the cost of one additional Police Officer in our Police Department
(moving from 51 to 52 sworn officers) and one additional Project Engineer that will be funded
from non-general fund sources.
PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY
On September 6th a Preliminary Property Tax Levy was adopted which represented an increase
of 5% over the 2010 levy. The levy increase is largely attributed to funding for debt service for
our new fire stations along with a modest increase to the General, and Parks and Recreation
Funds. For 2012, the combined preliminary General, and Parks and Recreation Fund expenditure
budget is $29,765,137 as compared to $29,416,249 in 2011 or approximately a 1.19% increase.
The 2012 Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $23,830,726 supports the operations of the General
Fund, Parks and Recreation Fund, Park Improvement Fund, Capital Replacement Fund,
Pavement Management Fund and Debt Service. As noted earlier, a majority of the levy increase
is being used to start paying off the bonds for the new fire stations. The remaining amount is
used for General Fund, and Parks and Recreation operations, which includes the addition of one
new police officer.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
The breakdown of the Preliminary Property Tax Levy by fund is shown in the following chart.
2011 2012 Dollar Change Percent Change
Levy Preliminary From 2011 From 2011
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Parks & Recreation Fund $20,094,172 $20,337,797 $243,625 1.21%
Less: Market Value Homestead Loss (667,539)- 667,539 -100.00%
Park Improvement Fund 1,519,000 810,000 (709,000) -46.68%
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300 438,300 100,000 29.56%
Pavement Management Fund 415,000 315,000 (100,000) -24.10%
Debt Service 996,995 1,929,629 932,634 93.54%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,695,928 $23,830,726 $1,134,798 5.00%
OPTIONS FOR LEVY ADJUSTMENTS AND BUDGET REVISIONS
Since the October 10th meeting with Council, the following changes were made to the Proposed
2012 Budget:
1) Reduced the employer benefit contribution increase to $0, leaving the $25 per month
per employee wellness program incentive in the budget as approved by Council on
April 4, 2011.
2) Allocated $30,024 in property tax levy dollars to the Employee Benefit Fund to be
used for partially offsetting the 9% maximum premium increase allowed under the
health insurance agreement between the City and Health Partners for 2013.
Therefore, based on these adjustments, and previous discussions, the City Council has $177,975
(difference between a balanced budget and the revenues obtained with a 5% levy increase) in
discretionary property tax revenue to consider the items listed below or other initiatives:
• Provide Funding for a Recreation Study: Set aside $25,000 for use of consultants
(estimated) to assist, if needed, with a feasibility study or other analysis/expenditures.
• Tree Watering: Contracting out the newly planted tree watering, estimated at $15,000
annually.
Based on the direction from Council on the above mentioned items, there would potentially be
property tax levy dollars available to allocate to the following funds:
• Employee Benefits Fund - This fund needs a direct funding source and is used for city-
wide operations in the benefit area including tuition reimbursement, workers
compensation and accrued leave.
• Housing Rehabilitation Fund - This fund is in need of additional resources to support
City programs.
If the City Council chooses to incorporate the items from above that total $177,975 in any
combination, the property tax levy would remain at an increase of 5.00% when compared to
2011. If Council chooses to incorporate none of the items from above, the levy could be reduced
from 5.00% to 4.22%. The Council may choose to fund any amount they desire up to $177,975,
but cannot exceed that amount unless first making changes to other portions of the 2012
Preliminary Budget.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
2012 UTILITY RATES
Utility Rates for 2012 were discussed with the City Council on September 26th and staff was
directed to proceed with rate adjustments as presented. The information on the following page
depicts what a sample customer’s utility bill is in 2011 and proposed for 2012.
Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill
Actual 2011 and Proposed 2012
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Projected Dollar Percent
Service Type 2011 2012 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.35$ 1.39$ 0.04$ 3.00%Change per PCE/Ehlers
Service charge 10.15$ 12.59$ 2.44$ 24.04%Change per PCE/Ehlers
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00%Change per PCE/Ehlers
Consumption 40.50$ 41.72$ 1.22$ 3.00%Change per PCE/Ehlers
Sewer
Service charge 12.54$ 13.04$ 0.50$ 4.00%Change per Ehlers
Consumption 72.90$ 75.90$ 3.00$ 4.12%Change per Ehlers
Storm Drainage
Service charge 15.00$ 15.50$ 0.50$ 3.33%Change per Ehlers
Bassett Creek Fee*-$ 1.60$ 1.60$ n/a Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)59.94$ 61.14$ 1.20$ 2.00%Change per Long Range Plan
Total Bill without Bassett*212.62$ 221.48$ 8.86$ 4.17%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)8.86$
Increase per year (dollars)35.43$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
POTENTIAL TAX IMPACTS BASED ON STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
The 2011 State Legislature repealed the Market Value Homestead Credit program and replaced it
with the Market Value Homestead Exclusion. This law will result in several changes at the local
level for residential homestead properties even if the City of St. Louis Park adopted the exact
same property tax levy as in 2011:
The State of Minnesota is no longer reducing total taxes through the Market Value Homestead
Credit program. The entire property tax levy will be paid by the taxpayers.
The reduction in taxable value due to the Market Value Homestead Exclusion will result in a
higher City tax rate. With less taxable value in the city, the total same levy as the prior year
would still result in a higher City tax rate.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
The reduction in taxable value shifts the relative burden of who pays, meaning the shift is to
other property types such as commercial/industrial and homes with higher values.
Examples of Property Tax Levy Adjustments
• 5.00% Increase As Adopted In The Preliminary Levy - The estimated impact on the
City share of property taxes, based on a 5% levy increase, differs widely based on the
value of a residential homesteaded property as discussed at the study session on October
10th. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of about $20 per year, or
approximately 3.0%, while other property owners could see an increase of about $130
per year, or approximately 4.0%. The City’s share of the estimated 2012 Preliminary
Property Tax decrease would occur in more affordable residential homesteaded
properties below approximately $193,000, while the increase in the estimated City share
of the 2012 Preliminary Property Taxes would occur in residential homesteaded
properties over approximately $193,000. These figures are only for the estimated City
share and do not factor in any change in other taxing jurisdictions.
• 4.22% Increase As Compared To The 2011 Final Levy – If the City Council chooses
to not use any of the discretionary property tax revenues discussed earlier, then the levy
increase would be 4.22%. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of
about $23 per year, or approximately 3.6%, while other property owners could see an
increase of about $106 per year, or approximately 3.3%. Again, the City’s share of the
estimated 2012 Preliminary Property Tax decrease would still occur in more affordable
residential homesteaded properties below approximately $193,000, while the increase in
the estimated City share of the 2012 Preliminary Property Taxes would occur in
residential homesteaded properties over approximately $193,000. These figures are only
for the estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other taxing jurisdictions
• 0.00% Change in 2012 Property Tax Levy Compared to the 2011 Final Levy - The
implications for a 0.00% levy change would mean the estimated City share of property
taxes would see a decrease of approximately $27, or 4.2%, to an increase of about $81 or
2.5%, depending on the value of a residential homesteaded property. As discussed on
October 10th, in order to achieve a 0.00% property tax levy change, the budget would
have to be reduced by approximately $1.02 million.
Total Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2012 for Taxes and Utilities
Based on the information stated above, using a City share levy increase of 5.00% and realizing
that there are many variables in estimating the City impact on a residential homestead property, a
“typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at approximately $220,100 for taxes payable in 2012
and having typical utilities as shown in the table on the previous page, would experience an
increase of approximately $3.95 per month or about $47.41 for the entire year. With a 4.22%
City share levy increase and utility rate adjustments, this would result in an increase of
approximately $3.40 per month or $40.79 for the entire year. In both examples of these
estimated increases, approximately $35.43 would be attributed to utility rate adjustments and
approximately $11.98 and $5.36 would be applicable to the 5.00% and 4.22% levy increases,
respectively.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
NEXT STEPS:
The proposed budget timeline for the remaining part of 2011 is as follows:
December 5 - Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
December 19 - Council Adopts 2012 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies, CIP and Utility Rates.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Details provided in this report and in the attachments.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision is considered throughout the budgeting process.
Attachments: 1. Summary of Revenues and Expenditures – General and Parks & Rec. Funds
2. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 5.00%
3. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 4.22%
4. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 0.00%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2010 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
Actuals Adopted Requested Change Final to '12
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,063,990$ 15,426,072$ 16,307,212$ 881,140 5.71%
Licenses and Permits 2,359,094 2,345,910 2,368,799 22,889 0.98%
Intergovernmental 1,576,222 1,136,187 1,163,677 27,490 2.42%
Charges for Services 1,243,976 1,152,642 1,270,354 117,713 10.21%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 401,554 328,200 328,150 (50) -0.02%
Investment Earnings 105,927 200,000 125,000 (75,000) -37.50%
Miscellaneous Revenue 40,285 104,900 115,100 10,200 9.72%
Transfers In 2,588,235 2,589,876 2,023,003 (566,874) -21.89%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,379,281$ 23,283,787$ 23,701,295$ 417,508 1.79%
Appropriations 22,393,730$ 23,283,787$ 23,392,375$ 108,587 0.47%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 985,551$ (0)$ 308,920$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ - 0.00%
Licenses and Permits 622 6,600 6,600 - 0.00%
Intergovernmental 89,631 77,652 68,902 (8,750) -11.27%
Charges for Services 1,022,344 1,095,249 1,070,750 (24,499) -2.24%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 56 - - - 0.00%
Investment Earnings 1,349 - - - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 974,562 952,400 980,050 27,650 2.90%
Transfers In 42,384 - 30,000 30,000 0.00%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,145,820$ 6,132,462$ 6,156,863$ 24,401 0.40%
Appropriations 6,063,029$ 6,132,462$ 6,287,808$ 155,346 2.53%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 82,791$ 0$ (130,945)$
Grand Totals:29,525,101$ 29,416,249$ 29,858,158$ 441,908$ 1.50%
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPENDITURES:177,975$
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2010 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
and Activity Actual Adopted Requested Change Final to '11
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,433,480$ 1,542,570$ 1,680,166$ 137,596 8.92%
Communications & Marketing 241,464 294,470 265,426 (29,044) -9.86%
Community Outreach 81,531 88,515 8,185 (80,330) -90.75%
Information Resources 1,384,231 1,394,226 1,507,579 113,353 8.13%
Accounting/Assessing 1,050,898 1,113,106 1,159,532 46,426 4.17%
Community Development 1,019,115 1,094,186 1,076,376 (17,810) -1.63%
Facilities Maintenance 952,859 1,114,550 1,083,128 (31,422) -2.82%
Total General Government 6,163,578 6,641,622 6,780,392 138,769 2.09%
Public Safety:
Police 6,986,667 7,208,512 7,273,723 65,211 0.90%
Fire Protection 2,989,548 3,164,344 3,346,931 182,588 5.77%
Inspectional Services 1,729,152 1,863,296 1,889,340 26,044 1.40%
Total Public Safety 11,705,367 12,236,152 12,509,994 273,843 2.24%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 872,845 829,698 389,783 (439,915) -53.02%
Engineering 798,240 846,031 927,337 81,306 9.61%
Operations 2,575,146 2,550,285 2,604,870 54,585 2.14%
Total Public Works 4,246,231 4,226,014 3,921,989 (304,025) -7.19%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,171,301 1,239,230 1,280,747 41,518 3.35%
Recreation Center 1,364,584 1,442,447 1,466,246 23,799 1.65%
Park Maintenance 1,413,840 1,435,374 1,461,645 26,271 1.83%
Westwood 488,259 502,366 515,456 13,091 2.61%
Environment 366,889 371,325 375,009 3,684 0.99%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,258,156 1,141,721 1,188,705 46,983 4.12%
Total Park & Recreation 6,063,029 6,132,462 6,287,808 155,346 2.53%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 278,554 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 278,554 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total General & Park Funds 28,456,759$ 29,416,250$ 29,680,183$ 263,933 0.90%
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
5.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 11-14-11
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 45.543 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 545.24 564.81 545.24 -19.57 -3.0%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 788.49 797.17 788.49 -8.69 -1.0%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 923.02 911.03 923.02 11.98 1.2%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,282.42 1,261.90 1,282.42 20.52 1.6%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,533.11 1,494.27 1,533.11 38.84 2.6%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,796.22 1,726.64 1,796.22 69.58 4.0%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,254.38 2,163.80 2,254.38 90.58 4.2%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,812.28 2,704.75 2,812.28 107.53 4.0%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,375.87 3,245.70 3,375.87 130.17 4.0%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.22% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 11-14-11
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 45.216 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 541.33 564.81 541.33 -23.48 -3.6%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 782.82 797.17 782.82 -14.35 -1.7%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 916.39 911.03 916.39 5.36 0.6%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,273.21 1,261.90 1,273.21 11.31 0.9%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,522.11 1,494.27 1,522.11 27.84 1.8%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,783.32 1,726.64 1,783.32 56.68 3.3%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,238.19 2,163.80 2,238.19 74.39 3.4%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,792.09 2,704.75 2,792.09 87.34 3.2%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,351.64 3,245.70 3,351.64 105.94 3.3%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 9
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
0.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 44.886 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 537.38 564.81 537.38 -27.43 -4.2%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 777.11 797.17 777.11 -20.06 -2.3%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 909.70 911.03 909.70 -1.33 -0.1%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,263.92 1,261.90 1,263.92 2.02 0.2%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,511.00 1,494.27 1,511.00 16.73 1.1%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,770.30 1,726.64 1,770.30 43.67 2.5%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,221.86 2,163.80 2,221.86 58.06 2.7%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,771.71 2,704.75 2,771.71 66.96 2.5%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,327.17 3,245.70 3,327.17 81.47 2.5%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 10
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
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:
Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this item is to discuss the Redeveloper’s plans for constructing the remaining
portions of the Hoigaard Village project and a realistic schedule for their completion. The
EDA’s Amended Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC requires the Redeveloper to
report to the EDA each year regarding the status of its Hoigaard Village project. In compliance
with this obligation Mr. Frank Dunbar representing Union Land II will be attending Monday’s
Study Session to provide a project update and discuss the latest plans for completing the project.
BACKGROUND:
The two largest components of the Hoigaard Village project, Harmony Vista (74 units and
25,000 SF of commercial space); and the 220 unit Camerata, as well as the project’s common
elements (contamination clean up, streets, utilities, regional pond, and site preparation) are all
complete and fully leased. The yet to be completed portions of the project are the smaller
elements, the proposed 58-unit Adagio and the 22 row homes called Medley Row.
Last year the Hoigaard Village developer (Union Land II LLC) and the EDA/City were focused
on structuring the permanent financing for the project. To that end, on October 18, 2010 the
EDA approved the issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds. While the
refinancing of Hoigaard Village has now been resolved, market conditions have held back
completion of the remaining portions of the project. The final two elements, the Adagio and the
Medley Row were expected to break ground last August and be completed by December 31,
2011. These commencement and completion dates were not going to be met so the
Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II needed to be amended. Therefore, at the same
October 18th meeting the EDA approved a Fifth Amendment which extended the deadlines for
construction on these two elements for one year. These components were scheduled to
commence by October 1, 2011 and be completed by December 31, 2012. The purpose behind the
one year extension was to eliminate a technical default that would have disrupted the permanent
financing that had just been put in place and to provide time for the Redeveloper to determine
how to complete the undeveloped portions of the project.
Union Land II recently had a market study completed by Maxfield Research which made
recommendations as to the unit mixes within the remaining Adagio and Medley Row
components. Following Maxfield’s recommendations, Union Land II proposes the Adagio
consist of 100 market rate apartments rather than the 58 condominiums currently required under
the Contract. Medley Row would remain as 22 townhomes but would be leased rather than
owner-occupied. These plans are the focus of Monday evening’s discussion. Once the unit mix
and construction schedule are agreed upon, the EDA will be requested to formalize them through
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule
a sixth amendment so as to avoid finding the Redeveloper in default under the Contract. Given
current market conditions Union Land II hopes to break ground next year once financing is
secured. The proposed unit mix for the entire Hoigaard Village project is attached for review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is not obligated to reimburse the Redeveloper for eligible expenses related to the
Adagio and Medley Row components of Hoigaard Village until they are completed; and, the
amount of reimbursement is limited to the available tax increment generated by the development.
Until the Adagio and Medley Row project components are constructed they will not be
contributing to the tax increment available for reimbursement of the Redeveloper’s TIF-eligible
expenses. It should be noted that the Redeveloper already has incurred the expenses for which it
is eligible for reimbursement. The Redeveloper will have to continue to carry these costs until
the development is completed. Thus, the Redeveloper has every incentive to fully complete the
project sooner rather than later.
The previous Contract extensions reflected the market reality relating to condominium and
townhome sales as well as apartment construction in the Twin Cities. The construction delay
means that the Redeveloper’s reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses related to Stages 2 and 3
has likewise been delayed.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hoigaard Village is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Hoigaard Village Unit Analysis
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy EDA Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
Hoigaard Village
Total Unit Analysis
9.30.11
Hoigaard Village Hoigaard Village
#Harmony Vista The Camerata The Adagio Medley Row Total UNITS Total %
1 Retail - (Owned by Others)24,600 SF 24,600 SF
2 Studio 14 3 17 4%
3 1 Bedroom 7 47 39 93 22%
4 1 Bedroom + Den 49 67 42 158 38%
5 2 Bedroom 18 84 16 118 28%
6 2 Bedroom + Den 8 8 2%
7 Townhome A 6 6 1%
8 Townhome B 16 16 4%
9 TOTAL 74 220 100 22 416 100%
NOTE: Actual results could vary from these projections because of the uncertainties in any financial forecast
Existing Developments Future Developments
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule Page 3
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Update on Community Recreation Facilities Study Process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council input on the process, timelines and speaker dates suggested in the report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with staff proceeding with the timelines and process proposed in
this report?
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council Study Session on August 23, 2010 staff presented a proposal for moving
forward on the exploration of the need for additional civic and/or recreational facilities in the
community. Undertaking such an effort originates from the 2005/2006 Vision St. Louis Park
process and the resulting Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council. Since that time, staff
has conducted both an online and Decision Resources survey to solicit feedback from the
residents on what programs and facilities they think are missing in the community.
The City Council last discussed future Community Recreation Facilities at their September 12,
2011 meeting. At that time council concurred that a tour of other city programs and facilities
would be appropriate. That tour will take place on Wednesday, November 16. Council also gave
approval to have an expert in the field update them on trends in the Parks and Recreation field.
As facility planning moves forward, we need to be thinking towards the future with an
understanding of our changing demographics.
COMMUNITY RECREATION PLANNING TIMELINES:
Staff suggests the following timelines:
November 2011
November 16, 2011 Tour of other city facilities
5:30 p.m. Meet at SLP City Hall
6:15 p.m. Chaska Community Center
7:20 p.m. Eden Prairie Community Center
8:30 p.m. Plymouth Creek Center and Field House
(Plymouth Life Time Fitness if time allows)
November 28, 2011 - Council Study Session
(Check-in with council for areas to discuss or follow-up on)
December 2011 - Check-in with new council members to get them up to speed on
where we have been and next steps
- Define mission and purpose of Task Force
- Solicit members for a Task Force (10-13 members)
January 2012
January - Appoint task force members
- Convene task force
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Update on Community Recreation Facilities Study Process
January 23 or 30 Dates for Ellen O’Sullivan to speak to Council members and other
stakeholders (City and School) regarding trends in Parks and
Recreation
February 2012
February 13, 2012 Council check-in regarding trends and upcoming public process
March 2012 - Public Process
- A series of focus groups lead by PRAC and staff
- A variety of community members (including members of Lenox,
youth associations, city and school commission members, people
who gave us their e-mail during the survey) will be invited as well
as advertisements on the website, Cable TV, and where appropriate
- Staff to research locations, potential partners and financing options
April 2012
April 9, 2012 Council Study Session to discuss what type of facility(s) could
support the programs our community wants and location(s). Hear
report from Task Force. Next steps might be to create an RFQ
(Request for Qualifications) or a RFP (Request for Proposal) or to ask
the Task Force to further study options.
SPEAKER ON TRENDS IN PARKS RECREATION AND FACILITY PLANNING:
As we have previously discussed, it is important that we plan for future trends as we move
forward. Staff has been in discussions with Ellen O’Sullivan, a well-known expert in the area of
Parks and Recreation trends. She is available to talk to the Council (and other community leaders
such as the School Board, CEAC, and PRAC if Council chooses to invite them) on January 23 or
30, 2012. Staff would appreciate feedback from the Council on which date is preferred. One of
the elements we need to keep in mind as we move forward with future planning is that as baby
boomers age, they will want very different facilities than the old “senior center” models. Because
the school district runs the Lenox Center and the City gives them money for senior
programming, the Council may want to invite them to hear the speaker. Lisa Greene, Community
Education Director, will attend the tour on November 16 and wants to be involved in future planning.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff is working out the details for Ellen O’Sullivan to speak. Staff is coordinating with the state
Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association (MRPA) to have Ellen speak to other professions in
the area in an additional session while she is here. The cost will be shared with MRPA. Council
gave direction to staff during the budget session to set aside some money to further study this issue.
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: None
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
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:
Update on Amended and Restated Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty – The West End
Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed at his time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this report is to update the EDA and City Council on Duke Realty’s request for
the issuance of two pay-as-you-go TIF Notes relative to The West End project.
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 2007 the EDA and City approved a Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty
related to The West End project near I-394 and Highway 100. This contract was substantially
modified to add the West End Apartments and change the schedule for building by an Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Contract approved on May 17, 2010. The project essentially
consists of three components – a lifestyle retail complex, an apartment building and a series of
Class A office buildings. The 350,000 SF lifestyle center is complete and 80% of the retail space
is leased. The upscale, 120–unit apartment building is expected to break ground late next spring.
Given the current office market, construction on the first of what is expected to be three or four
Class A office buildings (with 1.1 million SF between them) is not likely to occur until the
required commencement date which is March 1, 2014.
Initial Note and Request for Two TIF Notes
When the EDA approved the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Contract with Duke in 2010
it also approved the issuance of a $21.1 million TIF revenue Note. This Initial Note will be
issued very soon. The Note was on hold until Duke submitted to the EDA, and the EDA
certified, the required Public Redevelopment Costs were actually incurred by the Redeveloper.
Duke has subsequently submitted the required documentation and, staff and the EDA’s attorney
has reviewed the Public Redevelopment Costs and has verified that Duke has incurred more than
sufficient Costs within the project to warrant the issuance of the Initial Note. Therefore, the City
will be issuing the $21.1 million Note to Duke and making the first half of 2011 TIF payment to
them before the end of the year. The TIF Note is the vehicle by which the EDA provides
assistance to The West End project.
In order to make development of The West End project financially feasible, the EDA agreed under
both the original and amended Redevelopment Contract to reimburse Duke for the cost of
demolition, site preparation (including excavation and earth retention), stormwater retention
facilities, onsite utilities, private streets and alleys, structured parking facilities, as well as lighting
and landscaping (collectively referred to as “Public Redevelopment Costs”), related to the
Redevelopment Property up to a maximum of $21,100,000. This was to be achieved through
issuance of one or more pay-as-you-go TIF Notes.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Update on Amended & Restated Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty - The West End Project
Future TIF Notes
The Redevelopment Contract anticipates issuing more than one TIF Note. Duke has requested
that the EDA replace the initial $21.1 million TIF Note with two new Notes in the near future.
One would be a tax-exempt TIF Note covering Duke’s reimbursable expenses for public
improvements at the West End such as the extension of W 16th Street through the West End and
public utility work on the site. The second TIF Note would cover the rest of Duke’s expenses
eligible for reimbursement from TIF. These include reimbursement for soil corrections, building
demolition, etc. The second TIF Note would be taxable since the expenses reimbursed are not for
public improvements but extraordinary private expenses. Consideration of authorization to issue
these replacement TIF Notes will be on an EDA agenda in the near future.
Reduced TIF Note Principal Amount
The payments for any and all the West End TIF Notes are solely from available tax increment
generated from The West End project. The on-going poor economic conditions have delayed
construction of the West End office buildings and reduced the amount of tax increment generated
by the redevelopment. This, in turn, means that there is less tax increment available to make
payments on the West End TIF Notes. Ehlers is projecting that over the 20-year life of the Notes
only about $18 million of the $21.1 million in reimbursement allowed by the Redevelopment
Contract is likely to occur. The replacement TIF Notes will be sized appropriately to reflect the
reduced tax increment projected from The West End project. Duke is aware that the replacement
TIF Notes will likely be for a lesser amount than the original TIF Note. Ehlers is doing further
analysis to establish the appropriate principal amount for the replacement TIF Notes.
City Senior TIF Bonds
It is important to note that the City itself issued bonds ($4,965,000) to fund reconstruction of
Park Place Blvd. The tax increment generated from The West End project is the source of funds
for payments on these bonds too. The bonds for Park Place Blvd, referred to as Senior TIF
Bonds, have priority over Duke’s TIF Notes. In other words, the City has first claim on the tax
increment generated by The West End. The projected increment available for Duke’s TIF Notes
takes into account that the City’s bonds are paid before any increment is available for the Duke
TIF Notes.
Existing Office Buildings Sold
October 27th, Duke Realty officially notified the City that they were selling the 1600 Tower and
MoneyGram office buildings to the Blackstone Group. These are the existing office buildings
across the street from The West End. Duke will continue to own The West End and remains
committed to building the 1.1 million square feet of future office buildings called for in the
Redevelopment Contract with the City.
The 1600 Tower and MoneyGram building are not part of The West End project even though
they have been carefully integrated into the redevelopment. The EDA is not required to review
or approve of the transfer of the properties to the Blackstone Group. However, when the
Redevelopment Contract was amended and restated in May 2010, the legal description used
inadvertently included the 1600 Tower and MoneyGram office building site. This was an error.
The parcel on which these office buildings sit was not part of the original legal description for
the Redevelopment Contract with Duke in 2007.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Update on Amended & Restated Redevelopment Contract w/ Duke Realty - The West End Project
At the meetings on November 21st, the EDA and City and EDA will be asked to approve a very
short amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke correcting the legal description.
This action is needed for completion of the transfer of the existing office buildings to the
Blackstone Group.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
All costs associated with the Initial Note and the two future replacement Notes are secured by
available tax increment generated by the entire West End TIF District. The issuance of the TIF
Notes will not require any cash payments from other EDA or City funds. All costs associated
with the issuance of the Notes (Kennedy & Graven and Ehlers) are paid from 5% of the tax
increment generated from the project to pay administrative costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The West End project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy EDA Executive Director and Deputy City Manager
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7
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:
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Program Changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time - the purpose of this report is to update Council members on changes being
proposed by Hennepin County relating to their Residential Recycling Grant Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any questions or concerns related to changes to the County’s
Residential Recycling Grant Program?
BACKGROUND:
History
Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid in supporting
our residential curbside recycling program which serves all single family through four-plex
residential properties. Generally, every February the City submits an application for this
assistance. Hennepin County funds their program from SCORE funds which are derived from a
6.5% state sales tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. These state funds are distributed to
Counties for solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection. Hennepin County’s share of
SCORE funds is divided between cities on a proportional basis by the number of households. In
2011 the City of St. Louis Park received $103,166 from Hennepin County under this program.
Proposed Changes to the County Residential Recycling Grant Program
Hennepin County recently adopted the goals established by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency’s (MPCA) Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan. As a result, the County
is now making significant changes to its Residential Recycling Grant Program. The following is
a summary of the major changes to the County program:
Expenses associated with collection of household organics will now be considered
eligible recycling program expenses.
In addition to the normal annual reporting of materials collected, participation rates, etc.,
the City will be required to prepare a Planning Document describing programs or
activities that will be undertaken to increase recycling to make progress toward the 2015
County goals.
Future city recycling collection contracts will need to breakout expenses for: containers
(if hauler provided); collection service; processing cost per ton; and revenue sharing.
The County intends to establish a county-wide cooperative purchasing contract for
processing of some recyclable materials. Cities may voluntarily access and use this
contract.
The County will determine the recyclable materials that are to be collected and require
notification if additional recyclables are collected by a city.
The County will establish a communication committee comprised of County and City
staff to determine educational needs and messages.
The County will develop an annual priority education message campaign. The campaign
will promote one main message throughout the year.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Program Changes
Cities will be required to use the County’s terminology & images when publishing
recycling educational materials. This applies to both written materials and the city
website articles.
Cities will be required to send recycling guides to residents annually, using a template
created by the communications committee. If the county template is not used, prior
county approval will be required before sending.
Cities will need to complete two additional educational activities from a menu of options
developed by the communications committee to support the priority message campaign.
County approval will be required for any City recycling education publications that are
not produced using the County’s templates.
The County has created three new performance goals, of which cities need to achieve at
least one of the three goals. The new goals are 1) 725 pounds of recycling per household
per year, or 2) minimum recovery rate of 80% per year (city trash must not contain more
than 20% recyclable materials), or 3) municipalities with organized waste collection need
to have a recycling rate of at least 35% (total recyclable tonnage must be at least 35% of
our total trash and recycling tonnages). Currently the City meets Goal 2.
Failure by the City to demonstrate measureable progress towards these goals will result in
the requirement that the City submit a Recycling Improvement Plan within 90 days of
being notified by the County.
Annual grant funds will now be made available in two equal payments (currently one
payment). The first payment will be made after the County receives our annual grant
application in February and the second payment after the County determines that the City
is making measurable progress toward their 2015 goals.
It should be noted that Hennepin County has designated 2012 as a transition year and cities will
have until January 1, 2013, unless otherwise negotiated with the County, to implement
components of the funding policy that cannot be put into practice immediately in 2012.
Impacts Associated With the Proposed Changes
Listed below are impacts to the City related to the proposed changes listed above:
The County intends to require an expanded collection of plastic recyclables. While City
staff fully supports this, the current contract with Eureka Recycling will need to be
amended for this change to occur. Staff has discussed this with Eureka and this should
not be a problem. Changes in materials being collected will also require staff time and
effort to inform residents of the changes.
Staff feels the County requiring approval of our recycling publications and web articles is
over reaching and not necessary, but we feel we can make this work.
City staff applauds the County’s 2015 performance goals while questioning if they are
achievable for all cities including ours. Every city has different trash, recyclable,
organics, and yard waste volumes based on their infrastructure and residential
populations. We have met Goal 2, listed above, as recently as 2009; however, there is
no assurance we will again. Failure by a city to meet at least one of these goals or to
demonstrate measureable progress towards them could ultimately result in the County
terminating Residential Recycling Grant Program funds to us.
Summary
City staff supports increased recycling and collection of more materials (e.g. plastics). However,
we would also like to see the County promote efforts associated with waste reduction and reuse.
The County public education requirements are not preferred, but should be manageable. Finally,
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Program Changes
the 2015 performance goals appear to be fairly high and may be difficult to achieve, but are
worth pursuing.
Next Steps
To obtain recycling program funding assistance in 2012 and into the future, the following actions
need to be pursued:
County provides cities the new Recycling Program Agreement November 2011
Council update on County Recycling Grant Program Changes Nov. 14
Staff provides Council addition information (if requested) Nov. 28
Council considers approval of new Recycling Program Agreement Dec. 5 or Dec.19
County Board considers approval of Recycling Program Agreement January 2012
The County considers 2012 to be a transition year for their new program. This will give us the
opportunity to continue discussing these new program requirements with Hennepin County as
well as other cities to our mutual benefit.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The funding from this County grant program subsidizes the City’s residential curbside recycling
program. In 2011 the grant amount received by the City was $103,166.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Vision area:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8
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: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. Adoption of the Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan is
scheduled for the next regular City Council meeting on November 21, 2011. Please let staff
know of any questions or concerns you might have on this matter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The 2009 Comprehensive Plan update set forth policy direction and created plans city-wide. The
Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan takes the policies and plans in the
overall Comprehensive Plan to the neighborhood level, and highlights each neighborhood’s input
and priorities for the future. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan are carried through at the
neighborhood level; new policy directions are not proposed in this amendment.
BACKGROUND:
Strong neighborhoods are the backbone of St. Louis Park. In 2009 the City facilitated a city-
wide neighborhood input process to update the “Plan by Neighborhood” section of its
Comprehensive Plan. Over 150 citizens and business owners participated in the process, giving
valuable input on what is important at the neighborhood level. Participants worked on
identifying neighborhood features as well as priorities for the future. The input, as well as
detailed information for each neighborhood, has been updated and is now ready for finalizing.
Attached is the Introduction and one of the neighborhood plans, South Oak Hill, as a sample.
The Plan by Neighborhood section is a very large document. Thus, the entire plan and each
individual neighborhood’s plan are on the City’s web site:
http://www.stlouispark.org/comprehensive-plan/plan-by-neighborhood.html
Plan by Neighborhood Elements
St. Louis Park has valued the preservation and enhancement of each neighborhood. The Plan by
Neighborhood section shows that each has a unique sense of identity based on location, natural
features, history, development character and residents. Ideally, strong neighborhoods also
provide connectedness and support for a wide range of individuals and families, a source of
friendship and neighbors to rely upon if the need arises.
Each neighborhood plan consists of the following components:
• History and Character
• Neighborhood Features Map and Table
• Neighborhood Analysis Table
• Recent Plans and Studies (Directly Relevant to Each Neighborhood)
• 2030 Land Use Plan Map
• 2030 Comprehensive Plan Improvement Priorities
• Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (Identified by Neighborhood Input Process)
• Neighborhood Improvement Priorities Map
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
Summary of Input
Much of the input from neighbors reinforced the city’s existing Comprehensive Plan policies, as
well as echoing the direction in the City’s Vision statement.
Neighborhood input, given by individual neighborhoods, neighborhood planning areas, as well
as city-wide input, identified the following neighborhood priorities:
• Increasing neighborhood walkability
• Improving traffic calming measures to create safer and more livable neighborhood streets.
• Reducing nuisances.
• Enhancing public natural areas and open spaces.
• Expanding the network of bike routes.
• Expanding and improving neighborhood commercial nodes as walkable destinations.
• Retaining and attracting small businesses to neighborhood commercial nodes.
• Improving the compatibility between adjacent industrial areas and residential areas.
• Mitigating the nuisances created by freight rail lines adjacent to residential areas.
• Improving access from the neighborhoods to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
• Neighborhood Identity and Gathering Places.
Process
Following the input process, the city’s consultant HKGi created the Plan by Neighborhood
section. In the spring of 2011 it was shared with neighborhood leaders. A public hearing was
held by the Planning Commission on October 5, 2011 and neighborhood leaders were notified
that the plan was being finalized and the plans were available on the city’s web site.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5, 2011; no one was present to
comment. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, with an aim toward
strengthening neighborhoods.
Attachments: Plan by Neighborhood - Introduction
South Oak Hill Plan by Neighborhood Section
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
VI. F. Plan by Neighborhood
SEPTEMBER 2011
www.stlouispark.org
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 3
Environmental Stewardship
2 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F2 ComprehensivePlan
Plan by Neighborhood Index
NORTHEAST
Blackstone……………………….....................................................................................................................IV-F12
Cedarhurst........................................................................................................................................................IV-F18
Eliot...................................................................................................................................................................IV-F24
Eliot View…………………….........................................................................................................................IV-F30
NORTHWEST
Cedar Manor……………………....................................................................................................................IV-F36
Crestview……………………..........................................................................................................................IV-F42
Kilmer……………………...............................................................................................................................IV-F48
Pennsylvania Park……………………............................................................................................................IV-F54
Shelard Park……………………......................................................................................................................IV-F60
Westdale……………………............................................................................................................................IV-F66
Westwood Hills……………………................................................................................................................IV-F72
Willow Park……………………......................................................................................................................IV-F78
WEST CENTRAL
Amhurst……………………............................................................................................................................IV-F84
Aquila……………………................................................................................................................................IV-F90
Cobblecrest…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F96
Minnehaha…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F102
Oak Hill……………………...........................................................................................................................IV-F108
Texa Tonka…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F114
CENTRAL
Birchwood…………………….........................................................................................................................IV-F120
Bronx Park………………………....................................................................................................................IV-F126
Lenox……………………................................................................................................................................IV-F132
Sorenson……………………...........................................................................................................................I V-F138
EAST CENTRAL
Fern Hill……………………...........................................................................................................................IV-F144
Lake Forest…………………….......................................................................................................................IV-F150
Triangle……………………............................................................................................................................IV-F156
SOUTHEAST
Browndale……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F162
Minikahda Oaks……………………..............................................................................................................IV-F168
Minikahda Vista……………………..............................................................................................................IV-F174
Wolfe Park……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F180
SOUTHWEST
Brooklawns…………………….....................................................................................................................IV-F186
Brookside……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F192
Creekside……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F198
Elmwood……………………........................................................................................................................IV-F204
Meadowbrook……………………................................................................................................................IV-F210
South Oak Hill……………………..............................................................................................................IV-F216
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 4
Environmental Stewardship
3 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F3 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Planning Areas
Plan Created: July 25, 2011
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Community Development
Ü
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Neighborhood Planning Areas
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
£¤169
£¤169
Û7
Æÿ100
Æÿ100Northwest
Northeast
West Central
East Central
Central
Southeast
Southwest
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 5
Environmental Stewardship
4 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F4 ComprehensivePlan
Introduction
Vision For Neighborhoods
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
St. Louis Park’s Plan by Neighborhood is guided by the City’s
vision of creating and maintaining a very “livable community”
built upon strong neighborhoods. The ideal neighborhood has a
center, public gathering places, identifiable edges, and a walkable
environment. Although each neighborhood has a unique history,
development pattern, character, challenges, and opportunities, all
neighborhoods should ideally provide a healthy living environment
with convenient access to essential community services, including
transportation options, jobs, parks and open space, shopping,
services, entertainment, and other urban amenities.
Strong neighborhoods are the backbone of St. Louis Park being a
healthy community. As the community and neighborhoods face
inevitable change over time, the City values the preservation and
enhancement of each neighborhood’s unique sense of identity
based on its location, natural features, history, development
character and residents. Ideally, strong neighborhoods also
provide connectedness and support for a wide range of individuals
and families, a source of friendship and neighbors you can rely
upon if the need arises.
To support its Livable Community Vision, St. Louis Park has
established ten Livable Community Principles consisting of the
following:
1. Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods
2. Life-cycle housing choices
3. Higher density, mixed-use development
4. Human scale development
5. Transit-oriented development
6. Multi-modal streets and pathways
7. Preserved and enhanced natural environment
8. Attractive and convenient public gathering places
9. Public art, heritage, and culture
10. Unique community and neighborhood identity
Most of these Livable Community Principles explicitly address
the desired character of the community’s neighborhoods and
the major role strong neighborhoods play in creating a livable
community.
Where We Have Been
Although St. Louis Park’s early urban development in the late 19th
century began by progressing outward from the original village
center, at the intersection of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
(now CP Rail) and Wooddale Avenue, this concentric growth
pattern was overtaken by outward expansion from Minneapolis.
A secondary influence was the two streetcar lines that extended
outward from Minneapolis in the early 20th century: St. Louis
Park Line along West Lake Street/Minnetonka Boulevard and the
Como-Harriet Line along the south edge of the City. The City’s
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 6
Environmental Stewardship
5 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community - DRAFT
Introduction
IV-F5 ComprehensivePlan
Environmental Stewardship
5 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F5 ComprehensivePlan
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx Park
Cedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer
BrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-
haha
Pennsylvania
Park
Crest-
view
AmhurstWest-
dale
Minikahda
Oaks
City of St. Louis Park Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Map Created: November 3, 2008
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Information Resources
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
Ü
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 7
Environmental Stewardship
6 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community - DRAFT
Introduction
IV-F6 ComprehensivePlan
Environmental Stewardship
6 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F6 ComprehensivePlan
oldest neighborhoods with traditional street grids are located
in these areas – south, east and central - with more suburban
neighborhood development patterns occurring in the western
and northern areas of the community. Homes in the older and
more traditional neighborhoods have an average year built in the
1930s and 1940s with the oldest homes built in the 1920s and
earlier. The newer and more suburban neighborhoods contain
homes primarily built in the 1950s and after. Approximately
60% of the City’s housing stock was constructed in a short time
period following WWII, from the late 1940s through the 1950s,
primarily as starter homes for GI Bill families.
Neighborhood planning began in St. Louis Park in the mid-
1980s with the establishment of the Neighborhood Watch/Block
Captain Program in 1983. In 1990, the City Council formed
the Neighborhood Revitalization Task Force to address the need
for and the benefits of developing a neighborhood revitalization
program. Based on the Task Force’s recommendation to pursue
such a program, the City Council appointed the Neighborhood
Revitalization Committee and directed this group to implement
a neighborhood revitalization program. In 1992, the City
established a Neighborhood Revitalization Commission (NRC).
The purposes of the NRC were to:
• Create and maintain a sense of community
• Improve the appearance of neighborhoods
• Increase the feeling of security
• Identify and satisfy social needs
• Work toward achieving a high quality of life in St. Louis
Park
In 1991, the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee identified
neighborhoods defining neighborhood boundaries primarily by
rail corridors, major streets, natural features and/or municipal
borders. The exceptions are the smallest neighborhoods which are
mainly isolated residential subdivisions, including Minikahda
Oaks, Amhurst, Minnehaha, Westdale, Crestview, Kilmer and
Shelard Park. The final neighborhood boundaries were drawn
after residents were surveyed about their perceptions of their
neighborhoods. This city-wide survey also was used to determine
what St. Louis Park residents liked and did not like about their
neighborhoods. The City of St. Louis Park has defined 35
neighborhoods that encompass the entire land area of the City.
These neighborhoods are diverse in land area and population,
ranging from 30 to 2,000 acres in area and from 100 to 3,000
residents. Figure 1 shows a map of the 35 neighborhoods.
In 1996, the City established the pilot Neighborhood
Revitalization Grant Program that provides funding specifically
for neighborhood improvement activities and projects.
In 1998, a full-time staff position was created to focus on the
coordination of neighborhood programs, organizations and
activities.
The Plan by Neighborhood has been a chapter of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan since 2000.
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 8
Environmental Stewardship
7 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F7 ComprehensivePlan
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx Park
Cedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer PondBrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-
haha
Pennsylvania
Park
Crest-
view
AmhurstWest-
dale
Minikahda
Oaks
Residential Neighborhood Type
Neighborhood Map
Created: March 2011
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Information Resources
High Density Residential
Mixed Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
Ü
Legend
High Density Residential
Mixed Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 9
Environmental Stewardship
8 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F8 ComprehensivePlan
Where We Are Today
Neighborhood Housing Options
Overall, St. Louis Park’s mix of residential land uses and housing
types is distributed around the community. Some neighborhoods
contain a balanced mix of housing options within them, while
others contain predominately one type of housing, either single-
family detached houses, medium density housing, or high
density housing. Figure 2 shows a map of the 35 neighborhoods
categorized by their mix/type of housing options. About a third
of the community’s neighborhoods (11 neighborhoods) contain a
broad mix of housing options. About half of the neighborhoods
(18 neighborhoods) contain predominately low density residential
land uses as measured by percentage of housing units that are
single-family detached houses. Just two (2) neighborhoods contain
predominately medium density residential land uses. Four (4)
neighborhoods contain predominately high density residential
land uses.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas
St. Louis Park contains neighborhood commercial corridors along
some its major community roadways, consisting of the following
corridors:
• Excelsior Boulevard East
• Excelsior Boulevard West
• Minnetonka Boulevard East (scattered between France
Avenue and Highway 100)
• Walker-Lake Streets Area
• Wayzata Boulevard / I-394 frontage (primarily east of
Louisiana Avenue)
St. Louis Park contains a number of neighborhood commercial
nodes at key street intersections within the community, including
the following:
• Texas and Minnetonka (TexaTonka)
• Minnetonka & Louisiana
• Minnetonka & Dakota
• Minnetonka & Lake
• Louisiana & Cedar Lake Road
• Louisiana & 27th Street
In addition to neighborhood commercial areas, St. Louis Park
has the Park Commons “Town Center” and three (3) community
commercial centers (Knollwood, Miracle Mile, and Park Place
Boulevard/The Shops at the West End).
Neighborhood Parks
There are 30 neighborhood parks, with most of the community’s
35 neighborhoods having their own neighborhood park. Those
neighborhoods without their own neighborhood park have a
neighborhood or community park located near them. The City
does not have any current plans to acquire additional land for park
purposes. Among the amenities found in neighborhood parks are
play structures, athletic fields, community gardens, ponds, athletic
courts, lakes, trails, sun/picnic shelters, park buildings, limited
vehicle parking, sliding hills, and winter skating areas. In addition
to neighborhood parks, St. Louis Park has community parks (8),
community playfields (5), passive open spaces (20), historical
parks (3), regional trails (2), and two golf courses (one public, one
private).
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 10
Environmental Stewardship
9 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F9 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Programs
The City’s Neighborhood Watch/Block Captain Program continues
to be a voluntary crime prevention program aimed at reducing
the likelihood of becoming a crime victim. It works by teaching
simple, yet proven crime prevention techniques and building a
relationship among neighbors and between the neighborhood
and the Police Department. There are approximately 300 Block
Captains throughout the City today.
Twenty-eight (28) of St. Louis Park’s 35 neighborhoods are
represented by an organized neighborhood association. These
groups can rally residents together to solve a problem or voice an
opinion on a special issue. They can also hold neighborhood get-
togethers, organize park clean-ups, or share services (trading home
maintenance for child care, for example). Many neighborhoods
publish newsletters listing upcoming events and neighborhood
news.
The City has a full-time Community Liaison position focused on
the coordination of neighborhood programs, organizations and
activities.
The City has a Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program
that offers funding to organized neighborhoods for activities
or projects that are targeted to enhance or build community
within neighborhoods. For example, these grants can be used
for community building activities, communications such as
newsletters, and service projects. This grant program had $30,000
available in 2010 with a $2,000 maximum per neighborhood and
$600 maximum per event.
The City has a staff Outreach Connection Group which meets
monthly to keep departments connected with each other and
neighborhood activities.
Where We Are Headed
Neighborhood Planning Areas
As part of the updating process for the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter, seven (7) Neighborhood Planning Areas (NPAs) were
established to more efficiently facilitate neighborhood input
and identify common neighborhood issues and opportunities.
The seven (7) NPAs clusters the 35 neighborhoods into larger
geographic areas separated by the community’s most significant
“edges”, which are major roadways (MN Hwy 100, MN Hwy 7,
and Louisiana Avenue) and the rail corridors. Based on the success
of using the seven (7) NPAs to attract neighborhood input for
the Plan by Neighborhood update project, the City intends to
use the NPAs as a more effective and efficient means of seeking
neighborhood input in the future. Figure 3 shows a map of the
seven (7) NPAs, which are:
• Northeast : Blackstone, Cedarhurst, Eliot, Eliot View
• Northwest: Cedar Manor, Crestview, Kilmer, Pennsylvania
Park, Shelard Park, Westdale, Westwood Hills, Willow Park)
• West Central: Amhurst, Aquila, Cobblecrest, Minnehaha,
Oak Hill, Texa Tonka
• Central: Birchwood, Bronx Park, Lenox, Sorenson
• East Central (Fern Hill, Lake Forest, Triangle)
• Southeast (Browndale, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista,
Wolfe Park)
• Southwest (Brooklawns, Brookside, Creekside, Elmwood,
Photo: Adjo Habia / SLP Friends of the Arts
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 11
Environmental Stewardship
10 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F10 ComprehensivePlan
Meadowbrook, South Oak Hill)
Neighborhood Improvement Priorities
As a means to update the Plan by Neighborhood chapter and gain
neighborhood input on the updated Comprehensive Plan, the
City facilitated a neighborhood input process in spring 2009. This
neighborhood input process was organized around the seven (7)
NPAs. Analysis and evaluation of this neighborhood input at three
levels – 35 individual neighborhoods, seven (7) NPAs, and city-wide
– resulted in some key findings. Based on the neighborhood input
received, the following improvements emerged as neighborhood
priorities:
• Increasing neighborhood walkability by expanding both the
network of sidewalks and trails
• Improving traffic calming measures to create safer and more
livable neighborhood streets
• Reducing nuisances, particularly noise and light impacts
from streets, rail lines, industrial areas, and larger
commercial areas
• Enhancing public natural areas and open spaces within and
adjacent to neighborhoods
• Expanding the network of bike routes
• Expanding and improving neighborhood commercial nodes
as walkable neighborhood destinations
• Retaining and attracting small businesses to neighborhood
commercial nodes
• Improving the compatibility between adjacent industrial
areas and residential areas
• Mitigating the nuisances created by freight rail lines adjacent
to residential areas
• Improving access from the neighborhoods to the
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail, particularly adjacent
neighborhoods north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
railroad tracks.
Neighborhood Identity and Gathering Places
As a fully developed community, St. Louis Park neighborhoods
will experience change and improvement primarily through
reinvestment in existing development, public improvements,
and site redevelopment. All of these investments represent
opportunities to improve the neighborhood’s identity or character
and create more and/or improved neighborhood gathering places.
Public gathering places can consist of both publicly-owned (e.g.
parks, plazas, sidewalks, trails, civic facilities, schools, libraries)
and privately-owned (e.g. religious facilities, cafes, coffee shops,
entertainment venues) spaces. Future parks, streets, trails and
other public facility projects should incorporate opportunities to
enhance neighborhood identity and gathering places.
In particular, a neighborhood’s unique parks and open spaces
provide valuable opportunities for strengthening neighborhood
identity and gathering places. Likewise, redevelopment and major
property reinvestment projects have the potential to enhance
neighborhoods. For instance, new private development could
incorporate a public plaza, public art, benches, wider sidewalks,
transit amenities, neighborhood-related architecture or unique
signage.
Active Living Neighborhoods
The City is committed to improving the community’s network of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities to enhance all neighborhoods as
places that enable more active lifestyles and convenient connections
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 12
Environmental Stewardship
11 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
Introduction
IV-F11 ComprehensivePlan
to desirable neighborhood amenities. Each neighborhood plan
identifies the pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvement priorities
specifically related to that neighborhood.
Since streets represent the major portion of a neighborhood’s
public realm and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, improvements to
make streets more pedestrian and bike-friendly are critical. Some
of the most significant challenges to improving neighborhood
pedestrian and bicycle networks involve crossings at rail lines, state
highways and county highways, therefore, the community and the
neighborhoods will often need to partner with these other entities
to truly make the desired improvements.
Neighborhood Housing Options
St. Louis Park’s population is projected to grow and diversify
over the next twenty years. While St. Louis Park will experience
demographic changes in line with national, regional and metro
trends, the City’s existing housing stock also influences the
community’s future demographic composition. For example, the
community’s large number of smaller starter homes attracts more
single persons, younger families, and smaller households to the
community. If St. Louis Park wants to enable residents to remain
in the community and their neighborhood, throughout their
lives, the community needs to offer a sufficiently diverse range of
housing options.
Many neighborhoods will benefit from opportunities to diversify
their housing options through redevelopment and rehabilitation,
especially larger homes for families, senior housing, affordable
housing, and non-traditional owner-occupied housing. Each
neighborhood plan identifies whether or not the neighborhood has
significant redevelopment potential that could add new housing
options in the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the City’s need to conduct
a study of the community’s existing neighborhood commercial
corridors and nodes. Significant changes have occurred in the
community’s transportation patterns, development patterns,
commercial competition and consumers’ buying habits that present
major challenges for many of the commercial corridors and nodes.
This study would identify and evaluate these challenges as well as
market viability and revitalization opportunities.
In general, reinvestment or redevelopment in many neighborhood
commercial areas is challenged by inadequate space for business
expansions, parking, and storm water management. Neighborhood
commercial corridors and nodes may offer attractive opportunities
for adding new housing options, such as residential in mixed-
use buildings. These neighborhood centers also can have
significant potential for enhancing neighborhoods as important
public gathering places, transportation nodes, and significantly
contributing to a neighborhood’s sense of identity.
Format of Each Neighborhood Plan
Each neighborhood plan consists of the following components:
• History and Character
• Neighborhood Features Map and Table
• Neighborhood Analysis Table
• Recent Plans and Studies (Directly Relevant to Each
Neighborhood)
• 2030 Land Use Plan Map
• 2030 Comprehensive Plan Improvement Priorities
• Neighborhood Improvement Opportunities (Identified by
Neighborhood Input Process)
• Neighborhood Improvement Priorities Map
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 13
Environmental Stewardship
216 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F216 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Features Map:
South Oak Hill Neighborhood
History and Character
The South Oak Hill neighborhood is in the southern portion
of the city, located on the south side of MN Hwy 7 between
Texas Avenue and the CP Rail (MN & S Spur) line. Louisiana
Avenue is the primary north-south street running through the
neighborhood. This diverse neighborhood encompasses a small
residential neighborhood, industrial areas, and some commercial
businesses. Minnehaha Creek runs through the southwest corner
of the neighborhood. The neighborhood’s boundaries are MN
Hwy 7 (north); Texas Avenue (west); CP Rail/Bass Lake Spur
line and Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail (south); and CP Rail/
Louisiana OaksLouisiana Oaks
Aquila ParkAquila Park
Oak Hill ParkOak Hill Park
Edgebrook ParkEdgebrook Park
Walker FieldWalker Field
Sunset Sunset
ParkPark
Freedom Park Freedom Park
(Paul Frank)(Paul Frank)
Elie Park/Elie Park/
Tower ParkTower Park
Justad ParkJustad Park
Isaac Walton League/CreeksideIsaac Walton League/Creekside
Jorvig ParkJorvig Park
Parkview Parkview
ParkPark
HIGHWAY 7
LAKE
36TH
34TH
WALKER
OXFOR
D
37TH 1STRHODE ISLANDLI
B
R
A
R
Y2NDGORHAM
BRUNSWICKZINRANEXCELS
I
O
R
NORTH
DAKOTAGOODRICH
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
DIVISION
HAMILTON
34 1/2YUKON
POWELL LOUISIANATAFTCOLORADOB
R
OW
N
L
OW
PENNSYLVANIAHOSPITAL SERVICEMEADOWBROOKRE
P
U
B
L
I
C
BLAKEPHILLIPSMONI
TO
RDECATUR BLACKSTONEO
A
K
L
E
A
F
CAMBRIDGEWYOMING
WOODLANDBROOKVIEWTARGET SERVICESUNSET RIDGEBRUNS
W
I
C
K
37THWYOMINGDAKOTA35THVIRGINIA33RDYUKON
41STBOONERHODE
IS
LAND DAKOTA34THAQUILA
QUEBECCOLORADOBOONEALABAMAVIRGINIA33RD
35TH UTAHHIGHWAY 7
EDGEWOODSUMTERIDAHOOXFORD
33RD
I
D
A
H
OTEXAS
BRUNSWICK36THXYLON
RHODE ISLANDSUMTERDAKOTAUTAHXYLONLAKEVIRGINIA33RD
G
EO
R
G
I
A
39TH BRUNSWICKOREGON37TH
QUEBECCAMBRIDGEPENNSYLVANIAHIGHWAY 7
MEADOWBROOKHIGHWAY 7
COLORADOW
O
O
D
D
A
L
ECAVELL
Knollwood Mall
Methodist
Hospital
St. Louis Park
High School
Municipal
Svc Center
Central
Community
Center
Prince of Peace
Lutheran Church
Hennepin County
Library - SLP
Fire Station 1
Church of the
Holy Family
36TH ST W WALKER ST
BLAKE RD NLOUISIANA AVE SOXFOR
D
S
TAQUILA
AVE
S
W
O
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MEADOWBROOK RDLAKE ST
WTEXAS AVE SKnollwood Christian
Church
O a k P o n d
S o u t h O a k P o n d
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 14
Environmental Stewardship
217 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F217 ComprehensivePlan
MN & S Spur line (east). The neighborhood shares its western
and southern borders with the City of Hopkins.
The residential neighborhood is oriented around Lake Street and
consists primarily of single-family houses with some duplexes.
South Oak Hill is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods as
it was part of an 1892 subdivision called “Rearrangement of
St. Louis Park”. More than a dozen houses still existing in the
neighborhood were constructed before 1900. The neighborhood
park, Edgebrook Park, is located on the south edge of the
neighborhood. As a linear park located along the rail line, it
connects to the South Oak Pond open space area, which has
a city trail along the western side of the pond that connects
between Louisiana Ave and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail.
A neighborhood creek side access point to Minnehaha Creek is
provided in the southwest corner of the neighborhood.
The industrial areas on the east and west sides of Louisiana
Avenue are considered part of the Oxford/Louisiana Industrial
Park. A number of industrial buildings line the west side of
Louisiana Ave between MN Hwy 7 and the rail line, which
essentially surround the South Oak Pond. East of Louisiana
Ave, the MN Hwy 7 Corporate Center development, which was
completed in 2007, is an example of the City’s evolution toward
new industrial buildings that meet contemporary business
needs. In 2006, the big box retail building on the east side of
Louisiana Ave was completed. An electrical substation is located
on the east edge of the neighborhood next to the rail line.
The MN Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave intersection is planned
for a future upgrade to a separated grade interchange, which
is intended to improve the flow and safety of traffic through
this busy intersection. A future LRT station is planned at the
intersection of Louisiana Ave and the rail line as part of the
Southwest LRT line. These major transportation changes will
also have a major influence on redevelopment opportunities in
this area.
Neighborhood Features Information
Neighborhood Name:South Oak Hill
Institutions:Prince of Peace Lutheran Church
Parks (active):Edgebrook Park, Oak Hill/Louisiana Oaks Park (immediately north of the neighborhood)
Open spaces (passive):Minnehaha Creek, South Oak Pond
Major streets:MN Hwy 7 (Principal Arterial)
Louisiana Avenue (Minor Arterial)
Lake Street, MN Hwy 7 frontage road (Minor Collectors)
Transit corridors:Louisiana Ave, Texas Ave, 36th St, 37th St
Walkways:Louisiana Ave, Lake Street, Quebec Ave, South Oak Pond Trail
Bikeways:Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
Commercial corridors &
nodes:
Knollwood Mall (Community Commercial Center)
Walker-Lake Streets Area (Commercial Corridor)
Industrial areas:Oxford/Louisiana Industrial Park (just south of neighborhood), CP Rail (both the Bass Lake
Spur and the MN & S Spur) lines
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 15
Environmental Stewardship
218 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F218 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Analysis Information
Neighborhood Name:South Oak Hill
Neighborhood spatial size:194.7 acres or 0.30 square miles
Total number of housing units
(2009):
298
Housing units occupied /
occupancy rate:
296 (99.3%)
Housing ownership / rental mix:95.3% homestead / 4.7% non-homestead
Housing annualized turnover
rate 2004-2009:
4.7% homestead, 19.0% non-homestead
Average age of housing (single-
family detached):
1947
Connectivity of neighborhood
streets:
Street connectivity in and out of the neighborhood is
significantly limited due to railroad corridors (east and
south), MN Hwy 7 (north), and South Oak Pond (central).
Proximity/access to retail/
services:
Convenient access to commercial businesses along Louisiana
Ave and the Walker-Lake Streets Area commercial corridor
northwest of the neighborhood. Access to community-
scale retail and services at the Knollwood community
commercial center.
Proximity/access to transit:Convenient access to bus routes on Louisiana Ave, Texas
Ave, 36th St, and 37th St.
Proximity/access to parks/open
space:
Neighborhood parks: Edgebrook Park
Community parks: Oak Hill Park & Louisiana Oaks Park
(immediately north of the neighborhood)
Vehicle traffic volumes of streets
and intersections:
MN Hwy 7 is approaching its design capacity and the Texas
Ave/MN Hwy 7 intersection is anticipated to continue
exceeding its design capacity.
Pedestrian / bicycle facilities:Strengths: Sidewalks along Louisiana Ave; Cedar Lake LRT
Regional Trail runs through the neighborhood.
Weaknesses: Lack of designated north-south bikeway
within the neighborhood that connects to surrounding
destinations; gaps in sidewalks, including connections to
parks and open spaces.
2030 Planned land use mix:
SOUTH OAK HILL
17%15%
28%
40%
Under Age 35 Age 35 to 54
Age 55 to 74 Age 75 or more
Age mix of households:
SOUTH OAK HILL3%
97%
Single Family Detached
Duplex/Triplex
South Oak Hill
8%
8%
24%
4%
8%
3%
31%
12%
2%
RL CIV COM O BP
IND PRK RRR ROW
Mix of housing types:
Refer to 2030 Plan Land Use Map in
Section IV-B for land use code abbreviations
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 16
Environmental Stewardship
219 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F219 ComprehensivePlan
South Oak Neighborhood Sign
Recent Plans and Studies – Directly Relevant to
South Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning
• Active Living: Sidewalks & Trails Plan
• Southwest Transitway (LRT) Study
• Southwest Transitway Station Area Plan (Louisiana Station)
HIGHWAY 7
LAKE
36TH
34TH
WALKER
37TH 1STRHODE ISLANDLI
B
R
A
R
Y2NDGORHAM
BRUNSWICKZINRANEXCELS
I
O
R
NORTH
DAKOTAEDGEB
R
O
O
K
DIVISION
HAMILTON
34 1/2YUKON
POWELL TAFTCOLORADOBR
O
W
N
L
O
W
PENNSYLVANIAHOSPITAL SERVICERE
P
U
B
L
I
C
BLAKEM
O
N
I
T
O
R
O
A
K
L
E
A
F
CAMBRIDGEWYOMING
WOODLANDBROOKVIEWTARGET SERVICESUNSET RIDGEBRUNS
W
I
C
K
37THWYOMINGDAKOTA35THVIRGINIA33RDYUKON
41STBOONERHODE
ISLAND DAKOTA34THAQUILA
QUEBECCOLORADOBOONEVIRGINIA33RD
35TH UTAHHIGHWAY 7
EDGEWOODSUMTEROXFORD
ID
A
H
OTEXAS
BRUNSWICK36THXYLON
RHODE ISLANDSUMTERDAKOTAUTAHXYLONLAKE33RD
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
39TH BRUNSWICKOREGON37TH
QUEBECCAMBRIDGEPENNSYLVANIAHIGHWAY 7
MEADOWBROOKHIGHWAY 7
COLORADOWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
36TH ST W WALKER ST
BLAKE RD NLOUISIANA AVE SOXFOR
D
S
T
A
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E
S WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MEADOWBROOK RDLAKE ST
W
O a k P o n d
S o u t h O a k P o n d
2030 Land Use Plan Map:
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 17
Environmental Stewardship
220 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F220 ComprehensivePlan
2030 Comprehensive Plan Improvement Priorities
• Land Use / Economic Development & Redevelopment
»Commercial corridor study area – Excelsior Boulevard
West
»Neighborhood commercial node study area – None
»Southwest Transitway station area – Louisiana
• Housing
»Potential housing growth area – Louisiana LRT station
area, Walker-Lake area
• Transportation
»Transportation corridor study areas – CP Rail line
»Future bikeways – Louisiana Ave, Texas Ave, Walker
St/36th St
»Future sidewalk gaps to be constructed – Louisiana
Ave, 36th St
»Future City trails – Minnehaha Creek (Excelsior Blvd/
Cty Rd 3 to Meadowbrook Rd), CP Rail line (potential
regional trail)
»Future pedestrian bridge – None
»Future walk/bike street crossing improvements –
Excelsior Blvd/Cty Rd 3 & Yosemite Ave
»Future transit improvements – Louisiana Ave LRT
station, transit shelter at Texas Ave & MN Hwy 7
»Freight Rail Relocation Study - Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority
»North-south regional trail feasibility study - Three
Rivers Park District
South Oak Hill Neighborhood Improvement
Opportunities (Identified by Neighborhood
Process)
• Consider rezoning industrial land on west side of South
Oak Pond to non-industrial
• Explore potential for relocating the railroad train switching
functions
• Fill in sidewalk gaps on arterial and collector streets,
including on Texas Ave to connect to the Knollwood
commercial center
• Improve pedestrian crossing at MN Hwy 7 & Louisiana
Ave
• Provide an additional access to Edgebrook Park at
intersection of Taft Ave & Edgebrook Drive
• Explore potential for creating loop trail around South Oak
Pond
• Explore potential for regional trail in the CP Rail line
• Explore potential for nature trails along Minnehaha Creek
• Improve environmental quality and sustainability of
Minnehaha Creek
• Add park facilities to Edgebrook Park, such as tennis courts,
pavilion/shelter with picnic tables, formal entrance
• Add designated north-south bikeways in the neighborhood
• Improve Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail crossings of
Wooddale Ave and Belt Line Blvd
• Improve compatibility between the residential
neighborhood and the industrial park and railroad tracks
• Increase/improve retail businesses near the neighborhood,
such as Knollwood, MN Hwy 7, and Louisiana Ave
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 18
Environmental Stewardship
221 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
F. Plan By Neighborhood - South Oak Hill Neighborhood
IV-F221 ComprehensivePlan
Neighborhood Improvement Priorities Map:
Louisiana OaksLouisiana Oaks
Aquila ParkAquila Park
Rec Center / Wolfe ParkRec Center / Wolfe Park
Oak Hill ParkOak Hill Park
Edgebrook ParkEdgebrook Park
Texa-Tonka Park/Texa-Tonka Park/Lake VictoriaLake Victoria
Browndale ParkBrowndale Park
Ainsworth Ainsworth ParkPark
Walker FieldWalker Field
Birchwood Birchwood ParkPark
Carpenter Park/Carpenter Park/
Skippy FieldSkippy Field
Bronx ParkBronx Park
Keystone Keystone
ParkPark
LILAC PARKLILAC PARK
Oregon Oregon
ParkPark
Sunset Sunset
ParkPark
Center ParkCenter Park
Roxbury Roxbury
ParkPark
Webster ParkWebster Park
Freedom Park Freedom Park
(Paul Frank)(Paul Frank)
Elie Park/Elie Park/
Tower ParkTower Park
Knollwood Knollwood
GreenGreen
Justad ParkJustad Park
Isaac Walton League/CreeksideIsaac Walton League/Creekside
Rainbow Rainbow
ParkPark
Jorvig ParkJorvig Park
Sunshine ParkSunshine Park
Jackley ParkJackley Park
Town Green Town Green
ParkPark
Parkview Parkview
ParkPark
HIGHWAY 7
MINNETONKA
LAKE
36TH
34TH
27TH
WALKER
41STGEORGIAFLORIDAOXFOR
D
YOSEMITE37TH 1ST35TH
WOO
D
D
A
L
ERHODE ISLANDLI
B
R
A
R
Y ALABAMA39TH2ND HIGHWAY 10028TH
AQUILA31ST
GORHAMVERNON26TH
BRUNSWICKZARTHANTOLEDO32ND
ZINRANMARYLAND42ND
EXCELS
I
O
R
NORTH
BROOKSIDESALEMWEBSTER40THXENWOOD
BROOKDAKOTA29TH
GOODRICH
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
43 1/2BOONEDIVISION
HAMILTON
MACKEYMORNINGSIDE
VALLAC
H
E
R
30 1/2
34 1/2XYLON
44THYUKONRALEIGHBURDPOWELLCOOLIDGELOUISIANAC
A
V
E
L
L
TAFT35 1/2
COLORADOBR
O
W
N
L
O
W
DARTWOLFE
VICTORIASTANLEN
32 1/2
SERVICEBROWNDALE33RD
PENNSYLVANIAHOSPITAL SERVICEMEADOWBROOKRE
P
U
B
L
I
C
BLAKEPHILLIPSVERMONTINDEPENDENCEM
O
N
I
T
O
R
PARK CENTERDECATURBLACKSTONEGLENO
A
K
L
E
A
F
GETTYSBURGPRIVATE
PARK C
O
M
M
O
N
SHILLSBORO
WOOD
42 1/2
CAMBRIDGE GRANDWYOMINGMINNEHAHA
EB HWY7 TO SB HWY169WOODLANDBROOKVIEWENSIGNTOLEDO AVE S TO NB HWY100 STEXA TONKA
OAK PARK VILLA
G
E
TARGET SERVICEPARK NICOLLETAUTO CLUB
DEVANEY
FREDE
R
I
C
K
SUNSET RIDGEHOBARTOREGONBOONEXENWOODBRUNS
W
I
C
KFLAG32ND ALABAMARALEIGHPRIVATEZARTHANWYOMING37TH
FLAG
28TH
42ND
WALKERDAKOTA
WYOMINGZARTHAN34THQUEBEC31ST PRINCETONYOSEMITEDAKOTACAVELL35TH
RHODE ISLAND
VIRGINIA43 1/2PRINCETON
BROOK33RD
YUKONYOSEMITE41ST SALEM31ST
32ND
MEADOWBROOK WEBSTERBOONE29TH
BLACKSTONEUTICAPRIVATE
QUENTIN36TH
BROWNDALEOTTAWAWEBSTER41STBRUNSWICKBLACKSTONEYOSEMITEZARTHANRHODE IS
LAND DAKOTAHAMPSHIRERALEIGH
34THAQUILAGETTYSBURG
QUEBECCOLORADOWEBSTERBOONEPRINCETONALABAMA31ST
RALEIGHVIRGINIAWEBSTER31ST
33RD
42ND
33RD
LOUISIANA
SALEMNEVADAEDGEWOOD35TH
32ND
UTAHHIGHWAY 7QUEBEC
EDGEWOODSUMTERALABAMAJERSEYXENWOODPARK CENTER32ND
IDAHOOXFORD TOLEDO29TH
AQUILAYUKONUTICA33RD OTTAWAVERNON31ST
ID
A
H
OJORDAN
WEBSTER29TH
WOODDALETEXASPENNSYLVANIADECATURXENWOODXYLONCOLORADOBRUNSWICKSUMTERHILLSBOROGETTYSBURGQUEBEC36TH QUENTININDEPENDENCEXYLONUTAHQUENTINRHODE ISLANDSUMTERDAKOTA32ND
RALEIGH26TH
UTAHXYLONLAKEVIRGINIASALEMBOONEOTTAWA33RD
28TH
31
S
T
XENWOODG
E
O
R
G
I
AVIRGINIA TOLEDO27TH
39TH BRUNSWICKOREGONZINRAN37TH KENTUCKYQUEBEC28TH
CAMBRIDGE
PRINCETONENSIGNSALEM25THBOONE
PENNSYLVANIA28TH
HIGHWAY 7 EDGEWOODHIGHWAY 100MEADOWBROOK31STYOSEMITE
HIGHWAY 7VIRGINIA
OTTAWAZARTHANWEBSTERCOLORADOAQUILA29THBRUNSWICK RALEIGHWO
O
D
D
A
L
ECAVELL PRINCETONKnollwood Mall
Methodist
Hospital
Park Nicollet
Clinic
Miracle Mile
St. Louis Par k
High Schoo l
Rec Center
Excelsior & Grand
Texa-Tonka
MallAquila
Primary
Center
Municipal
Svc Center
Central
Community
Center
Groves
Learning
Center
Beth El SynagoguePeter Hobart Prim Center
Police
Station
Cedar Manor Inter CenterWestwood Lutheran Church
USPS -
St. Louis Park
South
City Hall
Susan Lindgren
Inter Center
Lenox
Senior
Center
Brookside Condos
Prince of Peace
Lutheran Church
Aldersgate Methodist
St. George's
Episcopal
Evangelical Free Church
Wooddale Evangelical
Lutheran
Hennepin County
Library - SLP
Fire Station 1
Church of the
Holy Family
Most Holy
Trinity Church
Holy
Family
School
USPS - St. Louis Park North
First
Lutheran
Church
Luthern Church of the Reformer
MINNETONKA BLVD
BLAKE RD S36TH ST W
HIGHWAY 100 SWALKER ST
5TH AVE NBLAKE RD NOAK RIDGE RDLOUISIANA AVE SOXFOR
D
S
T DAKOTA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SBROOKSIDE AVEA
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E
S VIRGINIA AVE SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
5TH AVE SMEADOWBROOK RDNB HWY169 TO HWY7SB HWY100 TO 50TH ST WHWY7 TO NB HWY169 STOLEDO AVE S TO NB HWY100 S7TH ST
S
TO
NB
HWY169SB HWY169 TO 7TH ST SNB HWY100 S TO EXCELSIOR BLVDLAKE ST
WTEXAS AVE S28TH ST W
36TH ST W
Quest Academy
Twin City Fellowship
Slavic Church
Emmanuel
Calvary Worship
Center
Timothy Lutheran
Church
Knollwood Christian
Church
Anglican Church
St. Dunstan's
O a k P o n d
S o u t h O a k P o n d
Study Session Meeting of November 14, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan Page 19