Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session April 23, 2007 Council Chambers Immediately following Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting 6:00 p.m. - 2007 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning 2. Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report 3. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project 4. Duke Realty’s Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Written Reports 5. Relocation of Polling Locations for Ward 1, Precinct 3 & 4 6. Financial Report (March 2007) 7. Quarterly Investment Report (January-March 2007) 8. Wireless Update 9. Proposed Changes to Bassett Creek Water Management Commission CIP 10. Recreation Center - East Arena Light Replacement Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 1 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 1 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next study session agenda. 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 study session on May 14. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 1 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 2 Future Study Session Agenda Planning Monday, May 14, 2007 Tentative Discussion Items - 6:30 p.m. A. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) B. EDI – Community Development (45 minutes) Does the city wish to sell a portion of 3515 Beltline Boulevard and provide TIF assistance for Park Nicollet’s proposed EDI facility pursuant to the business points/deal terms negotiated with United Properties/Park Nicollet? C. Proposed Office Building Anderson Builders – Community Development (30 minutes) Staff to discuss Anderson Builders’ proposed redevelopment project on Walker Street (immediately east of Anderson’s existing building) and their request for a modest amount of TIF. Does the Council support using TIF for this project? How does the Council wish to provide financial assistance for other small redevelopment projects in the city? D. Solid Waste Program - Public Works (30 minutes) Staff will continue discussion with Council about the solid waste program. What enhancement or changes does Council want to consider for the upcoming solid waste program? E. Highway 7/Wooddale Ave. Interchange Project Update – Public Works (30 minutes) Staff to provide an update to Council on the Hwy. 7 & Wooddale Ave. interchange project (Phase II), answer any project questions, and present a proposed public involvement plan to be used to consider and decide which design concept to develop and construct. F. Budget 2008 – Finance (60 minutes) Staff to lead Council in a discussion about the 2008 budget process and long term financial planning. 9:55 p.m. End of Meeting St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 1 2. Planning Commission Annual Report Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s Annual Report and Work Plan at its March 26, 2007 study session. The Planning Commission will meet with the City Council at the April 23, 2007 study session to discuss the past and future activities. Commission members attending anticipate the following topics of discussion with the Council: • Review 2006 activities and experiences • Discuss plans for 2007 • Answer questions from Council • Receive direction from Council The attached 2006 Annual Report and work plan from the Planning Commission will assist the Council in preparing for the above discussion topics and any related areas of interest to the Council. Attachments: 2006 Planning Commission Annual Report Planning Commission Work Plan Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 2 St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department Westmarke Condominiums, 1155 Ford Road St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 3 2006 St. Louis Park Planning Commission Lynne Carper, Chair Dennis Morris, Vice-Chair Jerry Timian, School Board Representative Claudia Johnston-Madison Robert Kramer Carl Robertson Richard Person St. Louis Park Planning Staff Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Sean Walther, Senior Planner Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 4 In 2006, the Planning Commission held numerous public hearings on various applications. The cases are listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow. Total 2006 Cases: 14 Conditional Use Permits 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2 Rezonings 3 Zoning Code Amendments 11 Subdivisions 7 Variances 3 Planned Unit Developments 2 Studies Multi-Family Housing Developments 2006 saw the introduction of several new multi-family housing developments within the City: Hoigaard Village - After receiving City Council approval of the first phase of construction in early 2006, the final approvals for the second phase of construction at Hoigaard Village came forward in mid-2006. Currently in the demolition phase, the developer anticipates construction beginning site-wide in early 2007. Inglewood Condominiums - The proposal for a 6-unit condominium building for 3125 Inglewood Avenue South required a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this development. The developer is currently planning to have construction underway in early 2007. Park Place II Apartments (Bigos) - Park Place II Apartments, located at 1361 Hampshire Avenue, represent another project that had received approvals in the past. In 2006 the environmental contamination on the site was addressed and the developer chose to move forward with the construction of the expected apartment building. The approval of the 49-unit development required a new Planned Unit Development agreement. Currently under construction, the developer anticipates completion in the fall of 2007. Village in the Park II - Rottlund Homes came forward with the second phase of the Village in the Park development in early 2006. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD for the development, and the developer anticipates coming forward for final approvals in early 2007. Westmarke Condominiums - The Westmarke Condominiums project, after being first approved in 2002 as a mixed-use apartment and office building, came forward for amendments to revise the building style. The Planning Commission St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 5 recommended approval to the amendments to the Conditional Use Permit for the structure, located on Ford Road in Shelard Park. At the current time, the 64 unit mixed-use building is under construction with completion anticipated in the spring of 2007. Single Family Developments 2006 was a quiet year for single family developments, with only a single developer proposing a subdivision: Hill Lane Plat - The developer at 2221 Hill Lane proposed a plat of the property, splitting one lot into three. This proposal resulted in a challenging process and a great deal of discussion, culminating with a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. The developer has filed the plat, but no construction is currently anticipated in the near-term. Excess Land Process The City Council’s excess land disbursement process continued in 2006. The Planning Commission reviewed several of the proposed sites for single family homes due to Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Plats required prior to the land sales: 7701 Edgebrook Drive 9019 Cedar Lake Road 2715 Monterey Avenue South 4525 Morningside Road 4200 Natchez Avenue South 2600 Natchez Avenue South Commercial Developments Several new developments, accompanied by various expected redevelopments, made 2006 a major year for commercial development: Highway 7 Corporate Center - The Golden Auto site remediation is enabling the redevelopment of one of St. Louis Park’s most pervasive brownfield sites. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the construction on this site; currently, remediation and construction are underway and completion is expected in fall of 2007. EDA Parking Lot - As part of the Golden Auto site remediation, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a plat and the development plans for a new parking lot serving Methodist Hospital located at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The construction of this parking lot was critical to the remediation occurring at the Golden Auto site – enabling the construction of a new office/warehouse building. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 6 Granite City - In March, the Planning Commission recommended approval of alterations to a PUD for the former Timberlodge Steakhouse to permit a new restaurant/brewery to enter the City, known as Granite City Food and Brewery. Hoigaard’s at Miracle Mile - Resulting from the redevelopment of their current site, Hoigaard’s retail store moved from West 36th Street to the Miracle Mile shopping center on Excelsior Boulevard. A minor expansion to the Miracle Mile required an amendment to the Special Permit. Construction is complete on the new Hoigaard’s store, which has been open since October of 2006. Cedar Pointe Redevelopment - Located at 5330 Cedar Lake Road, this development includes small retail shops, offices, and restaurants. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit required for this development to move forward. It is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring of 2007. Zoning Amendments Throughout the course of the year, the Planning Commission continuously looks at potential zoning Issues that may result in amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. During 2006, the Planning Commission helped create a new zoning district and recommended major modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. Amendments - Numerous amendments were discussed throughout the year. Addressed by the Planning Commission were: • Residential setbacks • Detached garages • Accessory buildings • Lot divisions • Allow studios in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district • Awnings and canopies • Permitted building materials (hardiboard) • Signs • Non-conformities • Parks and Open Space zoning district Studies R-1 Zoning District Study – The Planning Staff was directed by the City Council to conduct a study of R-1 zoning district areas in the city to present options related to potentially creating a new, larger lot zoning district. The Planning Commission discussed the issues at a number of public meetings in August and September. At the conclusion of the study, the Planning Commission recommended that the R-1 zoning lot size remain as is and the City Council accepted this recommendation without further action. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 7 Parks and Open Space zoning district – A new zoning district, created to more appropriately classify parks within St. Louis Park. The district included creating a new district in the zoning text and amending the zoning map to rezone city owned park land. Landscape and Off-Street Parking Code – The Planning Commission reviewed several changes to the landscaping and parking sections of the zoning code. These changes are expected to be finalized in 2007. Joint Meetings In November the Planning Commission met jointly with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to discuss the Park and Open Space zoning ordinance. It was agreed an annual meeting between the groups would be beneficial. The Planning Commission also met with the City Council several times to discuss proposed zoning ordinance amendments. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 2 - Planning Commission 2006 Annual Report Page 8 St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2007 Work Plan A. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, Preliminary Plats and variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make recommendations to the City Council. Expected Applications: • Duke development – rezoning, PUD, plat • Rottlund VIP II – PUD • Park Nicollet Eating Disorders Institute – rezoning, PUD, plat • Methodist Hospital Cancer Center – PUD amendment B. Updates to the Zoning Ordinance – Continue work to update portions of the Zoning Ordinance including landscaping, parking, PUD and Administrative sections of the ordinance. C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Begin working on issues related to transportation, utilities, land use and parks and recreation. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Page 1 3. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Public Works PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this discussion is two-fold. First, staff desires to provide the City Council an update on the progress of this project and to answer any questions the Council may have regarding the project at this time. Second, staff desires feedback regarding its recommendation (as outlined later in this report) that the City retain a consultant to evaluate potential traffic implications to adjacent neighborhoods depending upon the underpass option chosen. In the future, this analysis will assist the City Council in determining which option to approve. BACKGROUND: On December 11, 2006 Mn/DOT staff presented a revised preliminary geometric layout and four possible underpass options for Council consideration and comment. The revised layout (Base Option) proposes to retain the existing underpass at its current location north of W23rd Street along the south side of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The four underpass options presented for Council consideration were: 1. W. 26th Street Hwy 100 - raised 21’ Est. local cost: $5.2 to $7.8 million 2. W. 25 ½ Street Hwy 100 - raised 21’ Est. local cost: $5.2 to $7.8 million 3. Parkwoods Road Hwy 100 - minimal change Est. local cost: $3.5 to $4.5 million 4. Existing (W. 23rd St) Hwy 100 - no change Est. local cost: $0.8 to $1.2 million Subjects discussed were cost participation, right of way impacts, neighborhood traffic implications, project schedule, and public involvement. At the end of the Study Session, Mn/DOT and City staff were asked to provide further information for underpass options 1, 2, and 4 above regarding: A. Right of way implications - specifically a R/W footprint for each option B. Neighborhood traffic changes or impacts C. A listing of the pros and cons associated with each option Since then, MnDOT has developed preliminary geometric layouts with right of way implications for the three underpass locations. Plans showing these layouts will be available at the Study Session. The geometric layouts are as follows: • Base Option - current location and configuration • Option 1 - W26th Street - one way traffic to the south on Utica Ave • Option 2 - W26th Street - two way traffic to the south on Utica Ave • Option 3 - W26th Street - one way traffic to the south on Utica Ave • Option 4 - W25 ½ Street - one way traffic to the south on Utica Ave As you will see at the study session, right of way impacts for the base option are minimal; option 4 will require some right of way encroachment onto the ten properties immediately south of W27th Street on the west side of Hwy 100; and, options 1-3 will require significant right of way encroachment onto various properties north and south of W27th Street on the west side of Hwy 100 including the taking of homes in the area. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Page 2 MnDOT is not able to provide the city with any information regarding possible neighborhood traffic changes associated with the underpass options. Their modeling and analysis is done on a much larger scale which is aimed at Hwy 100 and does not provide relevant information about neighborhood traffic changes. Since a change in the underpass location is at our option, it will be our responsibility to study and evaluate the options to the extent we feel necessary. Staff has discussed and verified this situation with Hennepin County staff and two consultants who have worked with MnDOT on similar projects. Finally, in evaluating the revised preliminary geometric layout, MnDOT has determined that due to the need for additional right of way on the east side of Hwy 100 there will not be room to retain the existing trail north of W25 ½ Street. The existing trail will need to be relocated to the west side of Hwy 100 north of W25 ½ Street either via an overhead pedestrian bridge (such as currently exists) or in conjunction with an underpass at either W26th Street or W25 ½ Street. DISCUSSION: To satisfy Council and neighborhood questions regarding possible neighborhood traffic changes, it appears it will be necessary to conduct a study to understand what neighborhood traffic patterns and volumes may result depending upon the underpass location chosen. Such a study would cost approximately $60,000 and would determine at a system level the needs for local arterials / collectors and for neighborhood connectivity. Included in this would be the identification, discussion, and evaluation of the following: • opportunities and constraints • community assets/values • minor arterial routing plans • transit, pedestrian and bicycle needs Traffic changes and volumes would only be projected for local arterials / collectors looking at neighborhood connectivity. A study like this will take several months to complete and is expected to answer the following questions: 1. Where does the City desire an underpass under Hwy 100? At W26th Street, at W25th1/2 Street, or further north at its current location just south of Cedar Lake Rd? 2. Where does the City desire the Southbound Hwy 100 on-ramp to be located? Near its current location over Cedar Lake Rd or between W27th Street and W26th Street? 3. What possible traffic implications in the area neighborhoods may be expected in relation to the respective underpass options? 4. To what extent will planned LRT affect the regional highways and local street facilities in the future? Will regional State and County highways and the local transportation system work in conjunction with the planned Southwest LRT? A key consideration in this will be to explore how future transit and park and ride facilities will interact with the pedestrian, local street, and highway networks. Hennepin County staff has been involved in preliminary discussions regarding this and concur that such a study is necessary. They are currently reviewing what their role should be in this regarding both their involvement and cost participation. Study costs beyond the currently approximated $60,000 could be possible depending upon final County needs. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Page 3 NEXT STEPS: To address Council and neighborhood concerns regarding neighborhood traffic implications as well as to consider, evaluate, and plan for future County Highway and LRT facilities, a study as described above should be conducted. In that regard, the following general steps have been identified: 1. Determine Hennepin County role and respective cost participation in this effort (April - May) 2. Contract with a consultant for this proposed study (May) 3. Perform the proposed study (June - October) 4. Present study results and recommend underpass and on-ramp locations to Council (October - December) 5. Hold public information meetings on the proposed Hwy 100 project and underpass / on- ramp options (December - March) 6. Council recommends to MnDOT preferred location of Hwy 100 south on-ramp and underpass location (March - May) Attachment: Study Session Report of December 11, 2006 Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Page 4 Study Session Report from December 11, 2006 2. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Public Works PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To provide the City Council cost implications associated with local access / transportation options available to the community in the W. 26th Street area as well as answer any questions the Council may have regarding the project at this time. Mn/DOT staff will be in attendance at the meeting. BACKGROUND: On January 28, 2002 Mn/DOT staff formally introduced this proposed project to the Council. Subjects discussed were project goals, design concepts, cost participation, project schedule, and public involvement. As a result of that Study Session, Mn/DOT and City staff arranged a Public Informational Meeting on May 14, 2002 at Benilde-St. Margaret’s High School to inform the public about this proposed project. The draft preliminary geometric layout, on display on 2nd floor in City Hall, was presented to the public for review and comment at that meeting. Mn/DOT had various staff in attendance at the meeting to explain the proposed project and answer questions. Prior to the Public Informational Meeting, the City hosted a special meeting in April just for residents along the west side of Toledo Avenue north of W. 28th Street. They were told that most of their residences would probably be acquired due to this project. Concern was expressed by residents over acquisition costs, relocation, necessity to remain in the Fern Hill Neighborhood, and the project schedule. Mn/DOT staff attended the meeting to provide right of way acquisition and relocation information as well as to answer any other questions that were asked. Later in 2002 Mn/DOT determined the project needed to be delayed due to a lack of state funding. Work on the project was discontinued until 2005 when Mn/DOT staff was directed to develop an Interim Project aimed at congestion mitigation on this section of Highway 100. As a part of the recently approved Interim Project on Highway 100, Mn/DOT evaluated the operational aspects of the draft preliminary geometric layout which had been developed during 2002 and determined it had several fatal flaws that would have to be addressed when the Full Build Reconstruction Project was restarted. Finally, during the development and approval process of the Highway 100 Interim Project Mn/DOT designated the Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project as an “advanced design project” and committed to developing the project so plans are ready for letting in 2009 if sufficient new funding is available. This project is currently funded for a late 2014 letting. During February of this year Mn/DOT resumed the design process for this project. Their effort to date has been to revise the preliminary geometric layout to eliminate the fatal flaws discovered last year; the proposed preliminary geometric layout will be available at the meeting Monday evening. Because of necessary access changes, options for local access to Highway 100 and a possible underpass in the W. 26TH Street area are now possible. These options, identified as Options 1 – 4, were presented and discussed at the June 26th study session. A fifth option, not to construct an underpass, is also available for consideration (similar to the proposed preliminary geometric St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Page 5 layout described immediately above). Copies of Options 1 - 4 will be available at the meeting Monday evening. DISCUSSION: Mn/DOT has requested comments on the revised layout and Council direction on the underpass / access options they developed for the W. 26TH Street area. Once Mn/DOT receives city comments / direction, they will finalize the preliminary geometric layout. Their plan at this time is to complete the preliminary geometric layout, hold a public informational meeting, revise the layout based on public comments (as appropriate), and then begin the Municipal Consent Approval process during 2007. Options 1 – 4 with the proposed underpass were developed by Mn/DOT last June to address city staff concerns regarding limited local access and expected future transportation needs. Without enhanced access and an improved street system in this area, staff is concerned future local transportation needs will not be met and long-term redevelopment will be limited. Based on Council feedback last summer, Mn/DOT has evaluated an additional underpass located at Parkwoods Road. At this time there are four basic underpass locations that Council will be asked to consider and comment on: 1. W. 26th Street Hwy 100 - raised 21’ Est. local cost: $5.2 to $7.8 million 2. W. 25 ½ Street Hwy 100 - raised 21’ Est. local cost: $5.2 to $7.8 million 3. Parkwoods Road Hwy 100 - minimal change Est. local cost: $3.5 to $4.5 million 4. Existing (W. 23rd St) Hwy 100 - no change Est. local cost: $0.8 to $1.2 million It should be noted the elevation changes to Highway 100 are only for those locations and options shown. The last option (#4) basically provides for the continued existence of the W. 23rd Street underpass but with Highway 100 raised about 12 feet through the W. 26th / W. 25 ½ Street area in order to shift stormwater runoff from the Twin Lakes basin south to the Bass Lake area. Also, the estimated local costs shown above have been provided by Mn/DOT as a good faith estimate of our costs associated with Highway 100 and include Utica Avenue reconstruction, SLP utility relocations, and signal participation costs. Right of way, if needed, and bicycle / trail costs remain to be determined. Once the full build project is approved and completed, future improvements to Highway 100 for access or redevelopment purposes will be at City cost and will, frankly, be cost prohibitive. It appears the decisions made in the near future and the plans that will be approved will set the direction for a large area of the community for a long time into the future. The issues and concerns in deciding this will need to be carefully evaluated and discussed. QUESTIONS: 1. How should underpass options be considered by the City and feedback provided to Mn/DOT? 2. Does funding preclude the more expensive underpass options? 3. What right of way or bike / trail costs might the City be responsible for? 4. What, if any, traffic analysis information will be needed in deliberating these options? 5. What process and schedule is Mn/DOT considering to seek preliminary layout approval? Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 4 - Duke Realty's Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 1 4. Duke Realty’s Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this discussion is to update the Council and seek direction regarding Duke Realty’s redevelopment proposal for the SW corner of I-394 & Hwy 100, called the West End project; and its request for tax increment financing assistance. Representatives from Duke Realty will be at the study session to provide a project update and answer any questions the Council may have. BACKGROUND: At the 3/26/07 City Council Study Session Duke presented its proposed project concept plan and assistance request for the West End project. Since that time staff has worked with Duke to attempt to address the issues raised by Councilmembers that evening. The Duke site represents a unique opportunity. The location is regionally significant and potentially attractive to major corporate tenants. It is rare for anyone to have 32 acres of land available for development under single ownership at such a strong commercial location. Duke itself is an experienced developer with the resources to build major projects. Duke is proposing a very significant, high quality development. The total investment would be in the area of $350- $400 million. Four to five thousand jobs would be accommodated. The taxes and tax increment generated would help fund millions of dollars of public improvements including the extension of West 16th Street from Park Place Blvd to Utica Avenue. Annual taxes paid at full development would be approximately $10 million compared to about $1 million in taxes today. Clearly this is a project with many benefits for the community. However, the proposed project appears to be possible only with significant public investment. Approximately $35 million in assistance from some combination of tax increment financing and/or forgiveness of city fees (parkland dedication fees, etc) has been requested by the developer. This is a very significant level of public investment both in real dollar terms and in the number of years this project’s local property taxes would be captured as tax increment. ANALYSIS: Key Questions Considering the magnitude of the project and the level of public funds that would need to be invested to make this project a reality, there are two important questions that should be addressed. 1. Does this project fit with the community’s overall Vision and the vision for this site; and, 2. Will this investment help create something of lasting value, something that 20+ years from now, when the tax increment district has expired, will continue to be seen as a strong community asset, generating tax dollars, jobs, services and enhancing the community’s image for the benefit of our citizens. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 4 - Duke Realty's Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 2 In general the office portion of Duke’s proposal is consistent with the City’s plans and objectives for this corner of the city. Market conditions will dictate the exact timing of development, but once constructed these buildings will be of lasting value for the community. Duke’s experience and expertise in office development; and, the high quality projects they intend to build mean jobs and tax base for the community that will continue well beyond the life of the tax increment district. From staff’s perspective, what continues to be a challenge is the retail portion of the project. The city’s plans and objectives for the west portion of the Duke site (the property along Park Place Blvd) was not previously envisioned as a retail center; and, by its nature the long term viability of retail space is less certain. This lack of certainty about the city’s vision for this portion of the Duke site and the greater risk inherent with retail development makes it difficult for the city to decide whether or not the city should invest significant public funds in this project. These issues need to be addressed. Duke Realty has spent considerable time and money exploring and evaluating options for the redevelopment of its property. They have concluded that its proposed redevelopment plan is the best plan for its property. Duke is prepared to make decisions and move forward. Unfortunately, it does not seem the City has reached that same point in the decision process. The proposed Duke plan may indeed be the best plan for this site but the City has not developed a community vision nor has it explored and evaluated its options for this site to a level that makes a fully informed decision possible. This is of particular concern given the fact the City is being asked to be a partner in the project and invest many millions of dollars Before investing significant public funds in the Duke redevelopment effort, staff feels it would be appropriate to initiate a community planning process. The process would be designed to create a vision and a plan for this area which works for the community and Duke, the property owner. The process should include representation of all the key stakeholders for this site. It should explore and evaluate site development options and include market analyses to help identify and evaluate viable options. To complete a planning process for this site will take six to ten months. It is recognized that this will delay redevelopment of a substantial portion of the Duke site. If the Duke project could be phased, it would be appropriate to consider moving forward with the office portion of the project, while the planning process proceeds for the western portion of the site. Timing and funding of infrastructure improvements would need to be resolved for this approach to work. A tax increment district to fund extraordinary redevelopment costs would need to be created as part of the first phase of development and only expenses incurred within five years of the creation of the TIF district would be eligible to be funded with TIF. This means creating the TIF district prior to knowing exactly what would be built on the retail site entails some risk. Redevelopment expenses likely to be incurred in order to proceed with the office portion of the project include demolition of existing buildings, the extension of West 16th Street from Park Place Blvd to Utica Avenue, and other infrastructure improvements. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 4 - Duke Realty's Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 3 Duke’s Latest Plan Modifications Since the 3/26/07 City Council Study Session, Duke has worked diligently to attempt to address specific issues identified that evening. Duke has expanded both the exterior and the interior public space, added a second level office space above West End Blvd retail, removed signage from the parking ramp along the West End Blvd and improved the connection from the project to the east through the office area under Hwy 100. The public space additions included adding an interior playground and meeting space to the movie theaters entrance atrium on the east side of West End Blvd. The center of West End Blvd has been widened to provide more of a plaza than streetscape. The atrium public space and the West End Blvd plaza would be designed to work together. Duke has also expressed a willingness to engage in some public process related to designing the various public spaces within the proposed project. The added 30,000 square feet of office space on the second floor above first floor retail space on the west side of West End Blvd would increase the vitality of the retail project and increase the tax increment generated. It would make that portion of Duke’s project more truly mixed-use. This should improve both the long term viability of the project and slightly reduce (potentially) the number of years of tax increment needed to make the project viable. If the City Council is interested in discussing these improvements to the Duke concept plan, representatives of Duke will be available at the study session to present its revised concept plan. NEXT STEPS: Recommendation Duke Realty is proposing a significant project on a regionally significant site. The city is missing a clear plan or vision for at least part of this area with which to fully evaluate Duke’s proposal; and a market analysis is needed to evaluate the long term viability of any retail development in this location. Staff recommends beginning a community planning process and market analysis as soon as possible. If it is feasible, it would be desirable to proceed with the office portion of the redevelopment project while the planning for the western portion of the site is under way. The planning process should involve Duke, if it is willing to participate, and other stakeholders. It should explore options, include analysis of market conditions and result in a viable community vision for this area of the city. The goal would be for Duke, the city and other stakeholders to work together to create a successful redevelopment plan. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 042307 - 4 - Duke Realty's Concept Plan and Preliminary TIF Request Page 4 If the City Council desires to continue working with Duke on the redevelopment of a portion or all of the Duke property, the City/EDA should enter into a preliminary redevelopment agreement. The purpose of the agreement would be to specify what tasks need to be accomplished before the City/EDA would enter into an actual redevelopment contract with Duke and stipulate which party is responsible for those tasks. Attachments: Maps (Supplement) Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 5 - Ward 1 Polling Relocation Wards 3 & 4 Page 1 5. Relocation of Polling Locations for Ward 1, Precinct 3 & 4 Administrative Services PURPOSE OF REPORT: This report is intended to provide background for the City Council regarding two new polling place locations for St. Louis Park voters in Ward 1, Precinct 3 and Precinct 4. Approval by Resolution establishing the proposed polling place relocation is scheduled for the May 7, 2007 City Council Meeting. BACKGROUND: Groves Academy, 3200 Hwy 100, is the designated polling place for Precincts 3 and 4 and has asked the city to find another location if possible because of the disruption to their students. The following alternate locations have been evaluated and recommended based on the attached criteria established by Resolution No. 02-041 and statutory requirements: Precinct 3 – Peter Hobart School, 6800 Cedar Lake Road Peter Hobart is located just a few blocks outside the northwest corner boundary of Precinct 3, which is allowed by state law. The Peter Hobart gym is used currently for Precinct 2 and will be large enough to accommodate two precincts. This division of space would be similar to that of previous Groves Academy where the gym was also used for two precincts. The gym is located near an entrance allowing voters immediate access to the polling place without walking through school hallways. Peter Hobart meets ADA accessibility requirements and parking needs. Precinct 4 – Central Community Center, 6300 Walker Street Central Community Center is located on the south side of the Precinct 4 boundary. This facility was previously used as a polling place. Since then, remodeling of additional gyms occurred and the gym location would also be near the front main entrance to the building. Central Community Center meets ADA accessibility requirements and parking needs. VOTER NOTIFICATION: Staff will use a variety of methods to ensure all registered voters in precincts 3 and 4 are informed of the change in polling location. Information regarding the new polling locations for Precincts 3 and 4 will be published in the Park Perspective, City Website, and Sun Sailor newspaper. In addition, all registered voters in Precinct 3 and Precinct 4 from Ward One will be notified of the change by a post card mailed from Hennepin County, (paid for by the City) at least 25 days before the next election. The City/School Primary Election (if needed) would be September 11, 2007 and the General Election is November 6, 2007. A letter of appreciation will be sent to Groves Academy for their years of service along with a NOTICE and MAP to POST on Election Day stating the new precinct locations. Staff has been working closely with the school district to make sure that the transition happens as smoothly as possible. Attachments: Statutory/City Requirements Regarding Polling Places Map of Precinct 3 & 4 Polling Place Locations Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 5 - Ward 1 Polling Relocation Wards 3 & 4 Page 2 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING POLLING PLACES MN Statute Section 204B.16 regarding polling places and their designation requires: • Designation by resolution of the City Council • Location within the boundaries of a precinct or within 3,000 feet of a boundary • Accessibility to the handicapped • Sufficient size to accommodate all election activities, and • Separate from other activities within the building The Statutes also seek to ensure that polling places are made available for elections by stating: • Every city, county, school district and other PUBLIC agencies must make their facilities including parking available for holding elections. • Polling place changes must be made at least 90 days prior to an election (next election September 11, 2007) • Notices must be mailed directly to each registered voter in the precinct. CITY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING POLLING PLACES Resolution No. 02-041 adopted April 15, 2002 establishes the following criteria in evaluating polling locations: • Polling places will be designated based on the ability of the poll to accommodate voters in terms of handicapped access, parking, space within the building. Larger numbers of voters will be assigned to those buildings able to accommodate larger numbers of voters. • Whenever possible, public buildings not affiliated with religious organizations should be utilized and are preferable to churches, synagogues, schools and community centers associated with religious organizations. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 5 - Ward 1 Polling Relocation Wards 3 & 4 Page 3 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 6 - March 2007 Monthly Financial Report Page 1 6. March 2007 Monthly Financial Report Finance PURPOSE: This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the city’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. For the first three month period of the year, actual revenues and expenditures should generally run about 25% of the annual budget. Items that exceed the norm are highlighted below along with a general discussion of the cause for the variance. General Fund Revenue: • License and permit revenue is higher than expected because many of the annual license such as liquor licenses, rental licenses, and other items are received early in the year. Parks and Recreation Expenditures: • The Environmental Division has expended 33% of its budget for the year. This is because tree trimming and pruning is safer to perform in winter because it reduces the chance of disease transmission. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 6 - March 2007 Monthly Financial Report Page 2 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 6 - March 2007 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 6 - March 2007 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 6 - March 2007 Monthly Financial Report Page 5 City Council Study Session Written Report: 0042307 - 7 - Quarterly Investment Report (Jan-Mar 2007) Page 1 7. Quarterly Investment Report Finance PURPOSE OF REPORT: The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the quarterly status of the various investment accounts that the city maintains. BACKGROUND: The investment aims for St. Louis Park are quite conservative. We have three investment focus areas in order of importance. They are safety of principal, liquidity, and yield. This means we are primarily focused on not losing money through investments, having sufficient funds on hand to pay bills when they come due, and finally getting a market rate of return. State statutes limit our ability to invest in many risky types of investments. We are not legally able to invest in stocks or corporate debt. We are generally limited to federal and state government obligations or agencies backed by them. The city can also invest in bank Certificates of Deposit or money market accounts (with collateralization if in excess of FDIC insurance amounts), and the bonds of Minnesota cities. Safety of principal is really taken care of through an investment strategy. We intend to hold investments until maturity. That means we will get the rate of return for which we invested. Market value fluctuations will be reported, but we don’t really worry if we are temporarily higher or lower in our portfolio since we are not actively trading securities. We also do not extend our investments beyond five years unless we are matching cash flow with a specific debt service maturity. We make sure we are sufficiently liquid by forecasting our major cash needs throughout the year. Investments are then matched to come due at or near those dates to allow sufficient cash on hand without having to sell an investment prior to maturity. We take into account the fact that we will receive two large tax settlements each year, along with the debt service payments that occur each February and August. Our portfolio has been very focused on short term cash flow needs. We were over-weighted in short maturities. Finance has locked in some longer term securities in order to bridge any potential downturn from the current rates. We have made good progress in that regard over the last six months. 3/31/07 12/31/06 9/30/06 <1 Year 31% 52% 59% 1-2 Years 22% 18% 25% 2-3 Years 17% 13% 9% >3 Years 30% 17% 7% City Council Study Session Written Report: 0042307 - 7 - Quarterly Investment Report (Jan-Mar 2007) Page 2 A benchmark rate of return has not been established by our investment policy. Cities generally use a short horizon benchmark such as the two year Treasury (currently 4.64%) or some similar measure. Our current portfolio yield is roughly 4.67%. This is calculated by taking the yield times the current value for each investment and dividing the resulting amount by the total portfolio value. As investments purchased from 2003-2005 mature we will continue to replace them with higher yielding securities. Liquidity has been easy to maintain for last several months because we have a flat yield curve. This means that there is not much difference between investing for a long period of time or a short one. Our primary money market investment is the 4M Fund. It currently yields 4.93% with daily withdrawal privileges. This compares very well with the up to 5.10% yields that are available when five year investment options are considered and is about at our overall portfolio return. Investment totals by type are: Attachments: City Investments Prepared by: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Commercial Paper 3,170,563.74 Agency Bonds 53,783,618.55 Money Market 5,169,953.14 City Council Study Session Written Report: 0042307 - 7 - Quarterly Investment Report (Jan-Mar 2007) Page 3 City Council Study Session Written Report: 0042307 - 7 - Quarterly Investment Report (Jan-Mar 2007) Page 4 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 8 - Wireless Update Page 1 8. Wireless Update Information Resources PURPOSE: This report is designed to provide an update to Council on the status of ParkWiFi. Much of this information is a repeat and update of information presented verbally at the April 16 study session. BACKGROUND: Construction of ParkWiFi in the northeast part of St. Louis Park, including the installation of the underground fiber, began April 4. There were also 39 poles scheduled for installation that are designed to support the solar panels and wireless transceivers. For the entire City, we will need to make about 400 of these pole installations. ANALYSIS AND ACTIONS: As we started installing the poles we received a number of calls expressing concern about proposed pole locations and appearance. Upon analyzing this feedback further, we decided to take a step back and reassess the criteria we use for determining the location of poles. Up to that point the criteria we have used to plan the location of the poles related primarily to optimizing reliable wireless coverage in the most cost effective way and, very importantly, insuring the solar panels have a clear line of sight to the sun’s path. Given the very public nature of this project we issued a news release to explain this situation further. We thought it best to communicate and be as upfront as possible with our constituents as to what is happening. No story appeared in this week’s Sun Sailor; however, we do expect one may appear next week, including information discussed at the April 16 study session. Although we have suspended work on the pole installation, we are continuing with the installation of the underground fiber. To undertake a reevaluation of the pole design and locations may result in about a 6 week delay while re-engineering occurs and possible new materials are ordered. While not ideal, it is still manageable, and staff and the contractor are attempting to reduce that delay as much as possible. Based on resident feedback, staff presented the following criteria to consider in modifying pole design and location: • Pole color • Pole height • More use of intersection locations and minimize mid-lot public right-of-way views • More use of park and other public land • Co-locating street name signs and traffic control signs on the wireless pole (resulting in no net increase in number of poles at those locations) • Mounting on buildings and other structures • Locating poles in alleys • Locating poles along major roadways with existing street furniture • Greater use of city-owned street light poles St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 8 - Wireless Update Page 2 As Council is aware there are time, design, and cost impacts to the tool kit of design criteria. And any design will still likely result in some locations being less than perfect from a visual perspective. We will continue to minimize that impact, possibly with camouflaging efforts at some point. Council indicated its support for use of these criteria and impacts, while staff indicated it would communicate with Council next once cost and time implications have been determined. Those determinations are currently in process and potential new and more acceptable locations are already being identified. In addition, Council emphasized the following: • Council still wants the project to move forward. • We are aiming to minimize any cost impacts to the overall project. • Council is pleased the fiber component continues to move along. • Minimizing the delay in re-starting work is important to the vitality of the project and service. Making adjustments now means we would use those adjustments for the remainder of phases and not intend to stop work again. • Council does want a design that compromises on performance. • Council indicated support for considering easements on private property, especially along alleys. Their feedback from residents suggests this may be an option. • Consider use of wooden poles in addition to metal. • Update First Mile residents and ask them if they have any additional suggestions. NEXT STEPS: Staff continues to pursue redesign with all these parameters in mind, and will report back to Council with results. In addition, three more updates: • Unplugged Cities has acquired a new help desk facility and staff. The staff has been trained and calls are now being handled by them. We have had some positive feedback already. • Development of promotional materials and a web site continues. Adjustment of service availability dates is the last remaining piece to finalize those materials. Having said that, Council is encouraged to visit www.parkwifi.com to see the latest developments. • Staff will be meeting with developers on current and proposed projects to proactively integrate discussions of ParkWiFi services as developments are built. Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 9 - Proposed Changes to Bassett Creek CIP Page 1 9. Proposed Changes to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan Public Works PURPOSE OF REPORT: To provide the City Council information on changes the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) is considering in regards to their Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) along with possible associated tax increases to St. Louis Park property owners located within the Bassett Creek Watershed (map attached). BACKGROUND: The Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) is considering possible revisions to the Commission’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Commission is considering including some large channel maintenance projects in their CIP. Current annual contributions towards this channel maintenance effort have been set at $25,000. In order to add these larger projects ($150,000 to $500,000 each) to the CIP, it appears the current annual CIP assessment of $500,000 would need to be raised up to at least $1,000,000 and possibly as high as $2,000,000 per year. This could mean potential tax increases to city property owners in the BCWMC (northwest area of St. Louis Park) from $10 up to possibly $60 per year. The attached memo prepared by staff provides additional details on this issue. Commissioners at the March 15th BCWMC meeting requested that city staff members discuss this issue with city representatives and bring back comments for consideration by the Commission. Richard Johnson is our Commissioner to the BCWMC; Paul Carver is our alternate Commissioner. NEXT STEPS: Comments or concerns on this issue should be directed back to staff or directly to either of our Commissioners. Please let staff know if you would desire to discuss this matter at a study session. Attachments: Laura Adler memo of April 3, 2007 BCWMC map Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 9 - Proposed Changes to Bassett Creek CIP Page 2 Memorandum To: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works Scott Brink, City Engineer From: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Date: April 3, 2007 Re: Proposed changes to Bassett Creek Water Management Commission CIP In January 2007, the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met to discuss possible revisions to the Commission’s CIP. The TAC recommended that the Commission include some of the larger channel maintenance projects in the CIP. Currently, channel maintenance projects are handled through the Commission’s Channel Maintenance Fund, which has a balance of approximately $123,000. The annual contribution to this fund is $25,000. This fund is divided amongst the cities which have a portion of the trunk system (St. Louis Park does not have any trunk system, and so is not eligible for any of these funds). The channel maintenance projects that have recently been brought forward by member cities range in cost from $150,000 to $550,000. These amounts are far beyond the capacity of the Channel Maintenance Fund. This is why the TAC recommended that these projects be included in the CIP. However, in order to complete these projects, the annual assessment for the CIP would likely need to be raised. Currently, the assessment is approximately $500,000 per year. The TAC recommendation is to increase the assessment up to at least $1.0 million per year, possibly as high as $2.0 million per year. Commissioners at the March 15th BCWMC meeting requested that TAC members discuss these options with city representatives and staff and bring back comments for consideration by the Commission. The following table shows the impact of the Commission’s current ($500,000) and possible future CIP on the annual taxes for residential properties valued at $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, and $400,000 (table below prepared by Barr Engineering Company). Annual Assessment Per Residential Property Total CIP Ad Valorem Tax Assessment ($) Assessment Rate (1) (%) Annual Tax per Taxable Market Value $100,000 ($) $200,000 (2) ($) $300,000 ($) $400,000 ($) $500,000 0.392% $3.92 $7.84 $11.76 $15.68 $1,000,000 0.784% $7.84 $15.58 $23.52 $31.36 $1,500,000 1.176% $11.76 $23.58 $35.28 $47.04 $2,000,000 1.568% $15.68 $31.36 $47.04 $62.72 (1) Rate for residential properties (Hennepin County) (2) Example: Annual tax = ($200,000)(1.0%)(0.392%) = ($200,000)(.01)(.00392) = $7.84 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 - 9 - Proposed Changes to Bassett Creek CIP Page 3 St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 -10 - East Arena Light Replacement Page 1 10. Recreation Center - East Arena Light Replacement Parks and Recreation Department PURPOSE OF REPORT: Inform the City Council of a CIP project change that will expand our energy efficiencies for the arena lighting at the Rec Center. BACKGROUND: One of the Vision St. Louis Park “Strategic Directions” recently adopted by the City Council states that we should be “committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship” and that “We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business”. A focus area related to this Strategic Direction indicates that we should be “Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations” With these statements in mind, the Parks and Recreation staff is looking into possible areas to expand energy efficiencies in its operations and in particular at the Rec Center. The existing lighting system in the East Arena has an 11 year-old inefficient metal halide lighting system over the ice. In a metal halide system, the lamps will lose 40% to 50% lumen power over time. The loss of lumen power and malfunction of ballasts has caused a decrease in the lighting level. Our staff has received a number of complaints recently about the quality of the lighting. At this point, the existing East Arena lights need to be replaced. We have come to a fork in the road where we need to decide to continue to replace our existing metal halide system lights or move to a more environmentally friendly/more energy efficient system using compact fluorescent bulbs. ISSUES: To increase the lighting back to an acceptable level in the East Arena, the metal halide system is in need of approximately $7,000 of maintenance work. This work would include replacing 66, 400-watt lamps and replacing many of the ballasts, which are beginning to fail. Currently, Xcel Energy is sponsoring a 40% rebate program for customers who retrofit an inefficient lighting system with an energy efficient system. As a result, Staff is planning on installing in the East Arena the same efficient compact fluorescent system currently in the West Arena versus spending $7,000 on maintenance of an inefficient system. COST BREAKDOWN: Project Cost $ 28,050 40% Xcel Rebate - 11,220 Disposal of old fixtures 2,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 18,830 Annual projected energy savings $ 3,270 Return on Investment 5.75 years In addition to enhancing the lighting level in the East Arena, this project would also be environmentally friendly by saving energy. St. Louis Park City Council Study Session Written Report: 042307 -10 - East Arena Light Replacement Page 2 FUNDING: Staff plans on paying for the project out of the Park Improvement Fund. Due to the discussions regarding the relocation or rebuilding of the fire stations, the money budgeted in 2006 for improvements at Northside Park have not been spent. Although these improvements need to occur at some point, specific timelines have not been established. Thus, there is money available in the Park Improvement Fund to finance this lighting project. Please let staff know if you have any questions or concerns about this initiative. Prepared by: Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager