The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018/06/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. JUNE 20, 2018 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2018 and May 30, 2018 3. Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit – Light of the World Church Location: 6713 and 6719 Cedar Lake Road Applicant: Light of the World Church Case Nos.: 18-21-CUP 4. Other Business A. Consideration of Resolution No. 92 – Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans B. Resolution No. 93 Recognizing Torrey Kanne C. Resolution No. 94 Recognizing Richard Person 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952.928.2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 16, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Carl Robertson STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther 1. Comprehensive Plan – Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Strategies Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, reviewed the draft. She said new and/or revised goals are highlighted. Commissioner Peilen asked about the Commercial and Office Land Use goal regarding minimizing surface parking. She said she hoped that didn’t mean reducing parking in the city. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, responded that is an item coming from the council to consider reducing parking requirements by right-sizing parking lots, to prevent requiring or allowing more parking than is needed. Commissioner Peilen responded she is concerned that if the city gets to the point of reducing parking spots in order to encourage biking the impact may be that people shop elsewhere. Ms. McMonigal said a study would probably be conducted on implementation steps so that the community could be part of the discussion. She said the intent is to get rid of unnecessarily large parking lots that impact water and environment. Mr. Walther said an example would be Byerly’s parking lot which is probably one-third larger than it needs to be. Ms. McMonigal spoke about the community survey which is currently being conducted. She said about one-half of the survey is in regards to land use. Mr. Walther discussed the survey which was conducted last fall which gathered general input on what people wanted in the city and in their neighborhoods. He said those items have been incorporated and reflected in the comprehensive plan draft. The latest survey is to get more feedback on more specific policy changes. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission May 16, 2018 Page 2 Commissioner Carper asked when major community streets become more defined under Livable Communities goals. Mr. Walther responded initially there was a list of streets, and it is now more broadly defined which leaves some room for interpretation. He explained it is more of an approach to these projects and is just a wording change. Commissioner Carper asked where in the current plan that occurs. Mr. Walther responded that it is on-going. There may be additional definition and guidance in the mobility plan. There was a discussion about commercial corridors, residential streets and financing. Commissioner Person asked about the new section regarding developing a 2040 Sustainability Plan. He asked if development of such a plan would require an amendment to the Comp Plan. Mr. Walther responded if a new document is adopted with new policies, it can stand alone or it can be adopted by reference in the Comp Plan. Commissioner Peilen asked why the goal of conducting a sustainability assessment of economic and social systems’ conditions appears in the Climate Action Plan. Ms. McMonigal and Mr. Walther spoke about the Environmental and Sustainability Commission’s desire to include sustainability in the Climate Action Plan. There was a discussion about sustainability and interconnections in a city. Mr. Walther commented that the sustainability side of things is often defined as a three- legged stool which is economic, social and environmental. Commissioner Carper said the word sustain doesn’t seem to have anything to do with improving or enhancing. He said he’s concerned that the general public won’t understand the definition of sustainability. Ms. McMonigal read the UNESCO definition of sustainability, which appears in the Environmental Stewardship section of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Walther explained that sustainability will have considerable city discussion as part of the Climate Action Plan implementation process. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission May 16, 2018 Page 3 Commissioner Peilen asked about the new housing goal requirements for complimentary and compatible neighborhood design standards for single family homes. She said she doesn’t think the city should get involved in design standards. Commissioner Tatalovich had questions about accessory dwellings. Mr. Walther said including accessory dwellings in the Land Use section is a way to provide flexibility to allow more housing units and at a smaller scale than multi-family apartment buildings that have been prevalent in recent development. Regarding mobility goals, Commissioner Peilen said she is concerned about the emphasis on biking, along with the council wanting to reduce parking spaces. She said she wants to see balance. Ms. McMonigal said the intent is to provide more transportation options, and supporting healthier and non-polluting modes. She said more clarity could be provided. There was a discussion about complete streets design. In regards to Racial Equity Goals and Strategies, Commissioner Peilen asked if the city knows the racial equity concerns of people of color in the city. Ms. McMonigal spoke about data received through the Vision 3.0 public input process which indicated people of color felt isolated and unwelcome in the community. Commissioner Peilen stated that the goals and strategies of the 2040 Comp Plan are aggressive and implementation will be expensive. She asked how the city prioritizes spending on these goals and strategies. Mr. Walther spoke about the budgeting process. He said the Capital Improvements Plan for example will establish priorities for the next five years. Ms. McMonigal shared the format to be used for the Plan by Neighborhood section of the comprehensive plan. She said existing plans are online. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 30, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Jennifer Monson, Jack Sullivan, Deb Heiser OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Ecklund; Jessica Kraft; Craig Vaughn, SRF Consulting; Ciara Schlichting, Toole Design Group STUDY SESSION 1. Newly appointed commissioners Matt Ecklund and Jessica Kraft were introduced. Their terms begin June 1, 2018. 2. Comprehensive Plan – Review Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, said the consultants would be reviewing the Mobility chapter. Jack Sullivan, Sr. Engineering Project Manager, spoke about the city looking to give some focus to all users in getting around the community. This includes bicycle, pedestrians, and transit as well as the automobile. He said staff and consultants have been looking at how the Mobility chapter can be redefined to be consistent with the goals the community has set in its visioning process. Craig Vaughan, SRF Consulting, reviewed key points of the Mobility chapter. Deb Heiser, Engineering Director, spoke about the Living Streets policy. Ciara Schlichting, Toole Design Group, discussed the pedestrian and bicycle network analysis. Commissioner Peilen asked for a definition of the term “built mobility right-of- way”. Ms. Schlichting said built mobility right-of-way is the space that exists in the public realm and how it is allocated to accommodate all modes, some modes, etc. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 2 Commissioner Peilen spoke about planned bike lanes on Minnetonka Blvd. and how loss of street parking could affect the small businesses. Mr. Sullivan discussed the need to be context sensitive when looking at options in each street project. Chair Robertson spoke about the use of small circulator transport partnerships with transit. Mr. Vaughan reviewed goals and strategies of the Mobility chapter. Ms. McMonigal said the draft Comprehensive Plan will continue to be reorganized. The draft plan will be presented formally to the Commission on June 6 with a request to recommend the Council approve sending it out for its 6- month review period. Ms. McMonigal discussed the community on-line survey which began on May 14 and will continue until June 20. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan review schedule for the remainder of 2018 was discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Agenda Item: 3A 3A. Conditional Use Permit – Light of the World Church Location: 6713 and 6719 Cedar Lake Road Case Nos.: 18-21-CUP Applicant: Dmitri Smirnov, Church Administrator 120-day Review: September 4, 2018 Recommended Motions: Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by Staff. REQUEST: Dmitri Smirnov is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a religious institution at 6713 and 6719 Cedar Lake Road, and to expand the existing parking lot. SITE INFORMATION: Current Land Use Guidance: CIV-Civic Current Use: Place of Worship Current Zoning: R-2 Single-Family Residence Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single-Family and Multiple-Family Residence East: Single-Family Residence South: Single-Family Residence West: Single-Family Residence Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 2 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) BACKGROUND: The Light of the World church is a religious institution that occupied the existing facility in November 2013. The existing building was constructed in 1956. It is located at the southeast corner of Cedar Lake Road and Hampshire Avenue South. The building is located in the center of the property. There is a 33 space parking lot located on the west side of the church at the corner of Cedar Lake Road and Hampshire Ave South. The property on the east side of the church is landscaped with grass that in the past has been used for outdoor activities and parking. PROPOSED USE: The following is a summary of the proposed use. Conditional Use Permit – Religious Institution. The property has been used as a place of worship since it was constructed, and Light of the World will continue to use it as such. Places of worship are religious institutions allowed in the R-2 Single-Family Residence zoning district by conditional use permit. The property does not currently have a CUP. Therefore, it can continue to operate as is, however, changes to the property or building cannot be made until a CUP has been approved for the property. Light of the World would like to expand the parking lot by paving the area on the east side of the church. Therefore, a CUP must be approved for the property before the new parking lot can be constructed. The requested CUP includes the proposed parking lot changes. Variances. The Light of the World is requesting the following two variances with the CUP application: 1. Variance to reduce the privacy fence height from eight feet to six feet. The fence is required to screen parking lots from adjacent residential uses. 2. Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 76 parking spaces to 60. ZONING ANALYSIS: The following is an analysis of the criteria considered while reviewing a conditional use permit for a place of worship and variances. Religious Institutions zoning requirements: The property is zoned R-2 Single-Family Residence, and a place of worship (Religious Institution) is allowed by CUP, and with some conditions specific to this use. A summary of the conditions follows: Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 3 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) 1. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district. This condition is met. The building is located 49.7 feet from the closest residential property. 2. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. This condition is met. The parking lot provides an off-street passenger loading area. 3. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R district. This condition is met. The property does not have an outdoor play area. 4. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. This condition is met. The property has access to Cedar Lake Road. Conditional Use Permit review requirements: The following items are to be considered while reviewing a CUP. 1. Consistency with plans. The use of this property as a place of worship is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided “Civic” which allows place of worship. 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. The property has been used as a place of worship since it was constructed in 1956. The additional parking is expected to reduce some of the on-street parking, and it will replace the current grass parking area with a proper and safe surface that meets code requirements for surfacing, curbing, lighting and landscaping. 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed plan, with staff recommendations, meets the conditions required for a place of worship and parking lot improvements with the exception of the requested fence and parking count variances. If the fence variance is not approved, then an eight foot tall privacy fence will be required. If the parking variance is not approved, then the property will continue to be legally non- conforming to the number of parking spaces required. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Services will not be impacted by the proposed place of worship or parking lot expansion. 5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. The site design meets the requirements for a place of worship with the exception of the requested fence and parking count variances. Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 4 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. Additional municipal stormwater, sanitary sewer or water improvements are not required. On-site stormwater management improvements will be made in conjunction with the parking lot improvements. Additional zoning requirements: In addition to the conditions specific to the Religious Institutions use and the general communication criteria, the application needs to meet all other zoning regulations. The following is a summary of general zoning regulations: 1. Parking. The minimum number of parking spaces required for a place of worship is determined by the following formulas: one space per three seats in the assembly area and one space per 25 square feet of dining area. The Light of the World has both an assembly area and dining hall. Applying the parking formulas results in 38 spaces required for the assembly area and 38 spaces for the dining hall for a total of 76 spaces required by code. The Light of the World currently has 30 on-site parking spaces, six on-street parking spaces, and an undefined grass area used as overflow parking. The grass area does not count toward required parking since it is not a dedicated parking lot. Therefore, Light of the World currently has 36 parking spaces, leaving them 40 spaces short of the 76 spaces required by code. If the proposed parking lot is built, then the church will have 54 on-site parking spaces and six on-street parking spaces that count toward the required parking for a total of 60 parking spaces. This leaves the facility 16 parking spaces short of the minimum required by code for a place of worship of this size. This improvement also maximizes the amount of on-site parking spaces that can be constructed on this property. The proposed parking lot brings the property closer to compliance to the minimum parking requirement, with no ability to construct additional parking spaces on-site. There are two options to proceed: a) Continue operating as a Religious Institution that is legally non-conforming to the parking requirement. This means the Light of the World cannot expand the assembly area or dining hall unless it creates additional parking spaces as required by code. b) Apply for a variance to make the existing building, as it is currently being used, legally conforming to code. This removes the legally non-conformity, however, additions to the facility are treated the same as if it were legally non-conforming, meaning the Light of the World cannot expand the assembly area or dining hall unless it creates additional parking as required by code. c) Comply with code by constructing additional parking either off-site or by acquiring additional property adjacent to the facility. The difference between the first two options is the legally non-conforming classification attached to the property. While the classification doesn’t change how the city applies the parking requirement, it is often perceived as a label that property owners may wish to have removed from the property. Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 5 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) 2. Landscaping: The landscaping ordinance requires at least 16 trees on this property. The Landscaping plan shows installation of 16 trees to meet code. The trees will be planted for additional screening along the south and east property lines which are adjacent to residential. Additional trees will be planted in the front yard and as required in the new parking lot. Variance analysis. As noted above, the following two variances are requested: 1. Variance to reduce the privacy fence height from eight feet to six feet. The fence is required to screen parking lots from adjacent residential uses. 2. Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 76 parking spaces to 60. The following is an analysis of the criteria required by code to be considered when reviewing variances: 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Fence variance – Staff believes the requested variance will not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors. The six foot fence will mitigate the visual impacts of a parking lot, and prevent vehicle lights from shining onto neighboring properties. Parking variance – The church is currently short 40 parking spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion will add 30 additional parking spaces, reducing the shortfall to 16 parking spaces. It is expected that the additional parking spaces will reduce the frequency of on- street parking in the neighborhood. There is no history of complaints of on-street parking in the area resulting from the Light of the World or the previous church occupying the building. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Fence variance - The eight foot tall privacy fence will result in a tall barrier along the property line of the single-family home. Staff believes the intent of the ordinance was to provide a screen from parking lots that have more activity than typically generated by a small place of worship. Therefore, the six-foot fence height, which is typical of a privacy fence in a residential neighborhood is sufficient to mitigate the impact of the parking lot. Parking variance – The parking ordinance states that the assembly area and dining hall shall be counted toward the parking requirement. Staff believes this is necessary to meet the parking needs for larger facilities that may have two or more events occurring simultaneously. However, in smaller facilities such as the Light of the World church, it is unlikely that two events will happen at the same time. It is an older building with the assembly hall located directly above the dining hall. The noise generated by each event would impact the other. Additionally, the way the church is constructed, the building does not have the additional facilities needed to accommodate two events. For example, there is no common space available for people to congregate outside the assembly hall or dining hall before and after the event. The building is set up so that the dining hall will be the gathering space after an event is held in the assembly area (sanctuary). In cases such as this where the building is so small, it is reasonable to assume that only one event will occur at a time. If the parking formulas are calculated based on the size of the Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 6 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) assembly area only, then only 38 parking spaces would be required. The site, with the proposed parking lot and on-street parking, will have 60 parking spaces available. Staff believes that the variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. 3. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan encourages effective buffer and transition areas between different land use types. Fence variance –There is currently no screening to the property to the east, and only a chain link fence to the property to the south. This leaves clear line of sight views from the Light of the World property to the adjacent residential uses. The proposed six-foot privacy fence with additional trees will provide screening in scale with the place of worship land use, and will provide screening that has never existed before. Parking variance – The zoning ordinance requires 76 parking spaces for the Light of the World church. Staff believes that the church could operate with a smaller parking lot, such as the proposed parking lot with 54 parking spaces. A smaller parking lot will have less of an impact on the adjacent residential areas, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan by provide a transition in scale with the Light of the World and adjacent residential homes. 4. The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. This means that: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. For both variance requests, the Light of the World church, along with a fence and parking lot are permitted in the R-2 Single-Family residence district. The property is currently legally non-conforming to both the fence and parking lot requirements. The proposed fence and parking lot improvements will bring the property substantially closer to compliance, and the improvements are in scale with the land uses in the area, and will not alter the character of the area. Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 7 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. For both variances, the small size of the property is a factor in meeting the requirements of the fence and parking regulations. An eight foot tall fence is out of scale for the low use resulting from the small place of worship land use. Additionally, there is insufficient space on the small property to construct the required 76 parking stalls. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Fence variance – The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The eight-foot tall fence could be constructed, however, the proposed six-foot tall fence is sufficient to mitigate the impact of a low activity parking lot on the neighboring properties. Parking variance –The Light of the World will be able to continue to operate as it is if the variance is not granted. Therefore, the variance is not necessary to alleviate a substantial property right. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Fence variance – The granting of the variance to allow a six-foot tall fence instead of the required eight feet will reduce the impact to light and air to the surrounding properties. Parking variance – It is expected that the proposed parking lot will reduce the frequency and amount of on-street parking in the neighborhood. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Fence variance – the granting of the variance to allow a six-foot tall fence instead of the required eight feet does not alleviate a difficulty or hardship, but it does reduce the impact of a tall barrier on the adjacent residential properties, keeping the screening in scale with the impacts created by a small place of worship. Parking variance – The granting of the variance to allow 60 parking spaces instead of the required 76 parking spaces alleviates the difficulty of constructing an additional 16 parking spaces on the small property. Meeting of June 20, 2018 Page 8 Subject: CUP – Light of the World (Item 3A) STAFF RECOMMENDATONS: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to operate a Religious Institution at 6713 and 6719 Cedar Lake Road with a variance to allow a six-foot tall privacy fence instead of the required eight feet, and a variance to allow 60 parking spaces instead of the required 76 parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official Exhibits. a. Exhibit A: Site Plan (Paving and dimension Plan) b. Exhibit B: Grading and Erosion Control Plan c. Exhibit C: Landscape Plan d. Exhibit D: Utility Plan e. Exhibit E: Light Plan f. Exhibit F: Floor Plan 2. Concrete curbing and landscaped parking lot islands shall be installed as shown on the approved exhibit. 3. Landscaping shall be installed as shown on the approved exhibit, which requires at least 16 overstory trees. 4. A financial guarantee shall be submitted to ensure the completion of the landscaping, sidewalk. 5. The exit to Cedar Lake Road be altered to provide two-way traffic. 6. The variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 76 to 60 is approved based on the size of the existing assembly hall and dining hall. The assembly hall and the dining hall cannot be expanded unless additional parking spaces are provided as required by code at the time of the proposed expansion. 7. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction, including but not limited to: a. NPDES grading/construction permit. b. City of St. Louis Park erosion control, right-of-way permit, and parking lot permit. c. A stormwater management permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 8. In addition to other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval 9. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by property owner prior to issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS: • Letter from Applicant • Site Plans • Floor Plan Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor D; ni n a l-l ,,W ,J ,zg' / 33/ ez( w T-a;kz-er t 1 T----1 I--__] [::::_:] f.""------l L'Deft&{ | itr-i i-_i r-----_ll I-_--; r-__{ rirmzr-- &- 'fil -+ i_::r:= l-*-------1 l*--'-_'.| I ----------l l--l ffi r*---*-*-1 I BeilL*1, \ <- 4f I '---+ \ -it* \$ ALI A a GMEXISTINGDWELLINGDECKHAMPSHIRE AVENUECEDAR LAKE ROAD9" SANITARY SEWER LINE12" WATER LINEACLIGHT OF THE WORLD CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426FUTUREBUILDINGADDITIONBY OTHERSRELOCATEDSHED BYOTHERS1218.7'24'18.7'5'8.5'13.3'13.3'5.3'8'18'5'9'8'8'8'8'12.7'79412645'5'5'C51C51C53C53C53C53C54C54C51C63C52C52C52C52C55C64C63C65C53C63C65C63C66C63C6718.4'C614' HIGHC616' HIGHC616' HIGHC616' HIGHC616' HIGHC616' HIGHC62132' RETAINING WALLDescriptionRev. Date2018 PARKING LOTEXPANSIONLIGHT OF THE WORD CHURCHSheet:Sheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:12176167KBKKRR05.04.183524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comC 2018 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176167 - Light Of The World Church Parking Expansion\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176167 C2.dwg3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comLarsonEngineering, Inc.Project Title:LIGHT OF THE WORLDSLAVIC CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426Client:Date: Reg. No.:05.04.18I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly licensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the state of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0NORTH10 2040Kirk R. Roessler, P.E.20389NEW 3" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVERNEW 8" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASESEE DETAIL 1/C5NEW 4" CONCRETE PAVEMENT OVERNEW 6" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASESEE DETAIL 2/C5SYMBOL LEGENDPAVING ANDDIMENSION PLANC2 FUTUREBUILDINGADDITIONBY OTHERSRELOCATEDSHED BYOTHERS912911910915917916915914 913 912912911 910914913913915 91 6 917 914916 915 914 913 912913914913913914915916917GMEXISTINGDWELLING DECKHAMPSHIRE AVENUECEDAR LAKE ROAD9" SANITARY SEWER LINE12" WATER LINEACLIGHT OF THE WORLD CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426910912914913913914915912.60 TC912.10 GL914.80 TC914.30 GL914.48 TC*914.48 GL*912.15 TC911.65 GL912.85 TC912.35 GL916915.73 TC915.23 GL917.00 TC916.50 GL913.40 TC912.90 GL917.00 TC916.50 GL2.1%5.3%2.8%5.5%912.50 TC912.00 GL4.7%5.4%912.65 TC912.15 GL912.80 TC912.30 GL912.65 TC912.15 GL3.3%915.94 TC*915.44 GL*915.74 TC*915.24 GL*916.57 TC916.07 GL911.85 TW911.00 BW*910.60 TW909.28 BW*910.00 TW*910.00 BW*916.17 TC915.67 GL1.9%918.50 STP*918.07 C1.1%912.00 TW912.00 BW*917911910917.63 C917.20 C912909.5915.55 TC915.55 GL915.98 B915.91 B*915.48 B915.18 TC*915.18 GL*915.23 B*915.66 B917.28 C*917.28 C*917.10 C916.26 C5.0%916.12 C2.0%1.0%1.0%0.4%916916.16 B917916917918919919917918 913.96 TC913.96 GL914.54 TC914.04 GL913.94 B*914.80 TC914.30 GL914.73 TC914.23 GL914.49 TC913.99 GL914.71 TC914.21 GL915.75 TC915.25 GL915.98 TC915.48 GL914C58C58C58C59C58C510C56C57DescriptionRev. Date2018 PARKING LOTEXPANSIONLIGHT OF THE WORD CHURCHSheet:Sheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:12176167KBKKRR05.04.183524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comC 2018 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176167 - Light Of The World Church Parking Expansion\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176167 C3.dwg3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comLarsonEngineering, Inc.Project Title:LIGHT OF THE WORLDSLAVIC CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426Client:Date: Reg. No.:05.04.18I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly licensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the state of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0NORTH10 2040Kirk R. Roessler, P.E.20389GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROL PLANC3PROPOSED CONTOURS - MAJOR INTERVALGRADE BREAK LINEPROPOSED CONTOURS - MINOR INTERVAL949950950EXISTING CONTOURS2.0%950.00 TC949.50 GLGRADE SLOPESPOT ABBREVIATIONS:TC - TOP OF CURBGL - GUTTER LINEB - BITUMUNOUSC - CONCRETETW - TOP OF WALLBW - BOTTOM OF WALL (F/G)(*) - EXISTING TO BE VERIFIEDSILT FENCERIP-RAP / ROCK CONST. ENTRANCEINLET PROTECTIONCONCRETE WASHOUT STATIONLEGEND1. Owner and Contractor shall obtain MPCA-NPDES permit. Contractor shall be responsible for all feespertaining to this permit. The SWPPP shall be kept onsite at all times.2. Install temporary erosion control measures (inlet protection, silt fence, and rock construction entrances) priorto beginning any excavation or demolition work at the site.3. Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shallinstall temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins, additional siltation fencing, and/or disk the soilparallel to the contours as deemed necessary to further control erosion. All changes shall be recorded in theSWPPP.4. All construction site entrances shall be surfaced with crushed rock across the entire width of the entranceand from the entrance to a point 50' into the construction zone.5.The toe of the silt fence shall be trenched in a minimum of 6”. The trench backfill shall be compacted with avibratory plate compactor.6. All grading operations shall be conducted in a manner to minimize the potential for site erosion. Sedimentcontrol practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters before any up gradient land disturbingactivities begin.7. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case later than 14days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased.Temporary stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (e.g., clean aggregate stockpiles,demolition concrete stockpiles, sand stockpiles) and the constructed base components of roads, parking lotsand similar surfaces are exempt from this requirement.8. Pipe outlets must be provided with energy dissipation within 24 hours of connection to surface water.9. All riprap shall be installed with a filter material or soil separation fabric and comply with the MinnesotaDepartment of Transportation Standard Specifications.10. All storm sewer catch basins not needed for site drainage during construction shall be covered to preventrunoff from entering the storm sewer system. Catch basins necessary for site drainage during constructionshall be provided with inlet protection.11. In areas where concentrated flows occur (such as swales and areas in front of storm catch basins andintakes) the erosion control facilities shall be backed by stabilization structure to protect those facilities fromthe concentrated flows.12. Inspect the construction site once every seven days during active construction and within 24 hours after arainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. All inspections shall be recorded in the SWPPP.13. All silt fences must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sedimentreaches 1/3 of the height of the fence. These repairs must be made within 24 hours of discovery, or as soonas field conditions allow access. All repairs shall be recorded in the SWPPP.14. If sediment escapes the construction site, off-site accumulations of sediment must be removed in a mannerand at a frequency sufficient to minimize off-site impacts.15. All soils tracked onto pavement shall be removed daily.16. All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activity isreaching the infiltration area and these areas are protected from compaction due to construction equipmentdriving across the infiltration area.17. Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective sediment controls, and cannot be placed insurface waters, including stormwater conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditchesunless there is a bypass in place for the stormwater.18. Collected sediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper, plastic, fabric, construction anddemolition debris and other wastes must be disposed of properly and must comply with MPCA disposalrequirements.19. Oil, gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must be properly stored, including secondarycontainment, to prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to storage areas must beprovided to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in compliance with MPCAregulations.20. External washing of trucks and other construction vehicles must be limited to a defined area of the site.Runoff must be contained and waste properly disposed of. No engine degreasing is allowed onsite.21. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout operations must be contained in a leak-proofcontainment facility or impermeable liner. A compacted clay liner that does not allow washout liquids toenter ground water is considered an impermeable liner. The liquid and solid wastes must not contact theground, and there must not be runoff from the concrete washout operations or areas. Liquid and solidwastes must be disposed of properly and in compliance with MPCA regulations. A sign must be installedadjacent to each washout facility to inform concrete equipment operators to utilize the proper facilities.22. Upon completion of the project and stabilization of all graded areas, all temporary erosion control facilities(silt fences, hay bales, etc.) shall be removed from the site.23. Contractor shall submit Notice of Termination for MPCA-NPDES permit within 30 days after FinalStabilization.EROSION CONTROL NOTESGRADING NOTES1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or safety fence installed at thedrip line shall be in place prior to beginning any grading or demolitionwork at the site.2. All elevations with an asterisk (*) shall be field verified. If elevationsvary significantly, notify the Engineer for further instructions.3. Grades shown in paved areas represent finish elevation.4.Restore all disturbed areas with 4” of good quality topsoil and seed orsod.5. All construction shall be performed in accordance with state and localstandard specifications for construction.SEDIMENT LOG FUTUREBUILDINGADDITIONBY OTHERSRELOCATEDSHED BYOTHERS912911910915917916915914 913 912912911 910914913913915 91 6 917 914916 915 914 913 912913914913913914915916917GMEXISTINGDWELLING DECKHAMPSHIRE AVENUECEDAR LAKE ROAD9" SANITARY SEWER LINE12" WATER LINEACLIGHT OF THE WORLD CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426910912914913913914915916917911910912909.5916917916917918919919917918 914DescriptionRev. Date2018 PARKING LOTEXPANSIONLIGHT OF THE WORD CHURCHSheet:Sheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:12176167KBKKRR05.04.183524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comC 2018 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176167 - Light Of The World Church Parking Expansion\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176167 C3.1.dwg3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comLarsonEngineering, Inc.Project Title:LIGHT OF THE WORLDSLAVIC CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426Client:Date: Reg. No.:05.04.18I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly licensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the state of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0NORTH10 2040Kirk R. Roessler, P.E.20389LANDSCAPE PLANC3.1NOTES1. All planting locations shown are approximate. Final species andlocations shall be approved by the Owner.2. All planting shall follow local landscaping and planting requirements asset forth by the City of St. Louis Park.NEW SOD AND 4" OF QUALITY TOP SOILNEW SEED AND 4" OF QUALITY TOP SOILNEW TREE - SPECIES TO BE CHOSENBY OWNERSYMBOL LEGENDCOMMON NAMEVALLEY FORGE ELMMAPLE, AUTUMN BLAZEBICOLOR OAKKENTUCKY COFFEETREEBOULEVARD LINDENHONEYLOCUSTGINKGOPLANTING SCHEDULEOWNER TO CHOOSE SPECIFIC TREE SPECIES BASED ON THE TABLEBELOW. TREE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN. FUTUREBUILDINGADDITIONBY OTHERSRELOCATEDSHED BYOTHERSGMEXISTINGDWELLINGDECKHAMPSHIRE AVENUECEDAR LAKE ROAD9" SANITARY SEWER LINE12" WATER LINEACLIGHT OF THE WORLD CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426CB-1RIM = 911.65INV = 908.68STORMTECH SC-310 SYSTEMSYSTEM INV = 908.50TOTAL VOLUME = 2,188 CFSTMH-1RIM = 911.50INV = 909.75 NEINV = 908.50 SEFESINV = 909.6525 LF 12" HDPE @ 0.0%ISOLATOR ROWSTMH-2RIM = 912.15INV = 908.58SUMP = 905.58SYSTEM FOOTPRINT5 LF 12" HDPE @ 2.0%DescriptionRev. Date2018 PARKING LOTEXPANSIONLIGHT OF THE WORD CHURCHSheet:Sheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:12176167KBKKRR05.04.183524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comC 2018 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.P:\Projects\Projects - 2017\12176167 - Light Of The World Church Parking Expansion\C. Design\Drawing Files\12176167 C4.dwg3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comLarsonEngineering, Inc.Project Title:LIGHT OF THE WORLDSLAVIC CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426Client:Date: Reg. No.:05.04.18I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly licensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the state of Minnesota.PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0NORTH10 2040Kirk R. Roessler, P.E.20389UTILITY PLANC4CABLE UNDERGROUND LINEFIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND LINEELECTRIC UNDERGROUND LINEELECTRIC OVERHEAD LINETELEPHONE UNDERGROUND LINESTORM SEWER PIPESANITARY SEWER PIPENATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND LINEWATERMAIN PIPELIGHT POLESTORM MANHOLEFLARED ENDCURB INLETCATCH BASINWATER SHUTOFFGATE VALVE & BOXHYDRANTSANITARY MANHOLEDRAINTILE PIPELEGENDUTILITY NOTES1. It is the responsibility of the contractor to perform or coordinate all necessary utility connections andrelocations from existing utility locations to the proposed building, as well as to all onsite amenities.These connections include but are not limited to water, sanitary sewer, cable TV, telephone, gas,electric, site lighting, etc.2. The contractor shall notify all appropriate engineering departments and utility companies 72 hoursprior to construction. All necessary precautions shall be made to avoid damage to existing utilities.3. Storm sewer requires testing in accordance with Minnesota plumbing code 4714.1109 wherelocated within 10 feet of waterlines or the building.4. HDPE storm sewer piping shall meet ASTM F2306 and fittings shall meet ASTM D3212 jointpressure test. Installation shall meet ASTM C2321. WVFUTUREBUILDINGADDITIONBY OTHERSRELOCATEDSHED BYOTHERSEXISTINGDWELLINGDECKLIGHT OF THE WORLD CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426ACGM R LAKE ROAD1.4 1.41.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.91.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.91.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.72.1 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.72.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.82.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.52.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.42.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.43.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.53.3 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.73.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.62.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.72.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.82.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.62.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.72.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.51.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.61.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.71.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.61.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.71.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.61.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.71.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.70.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.60.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.60.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.40.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.40.10.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.20.10.10.10.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.10.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.0 0.01ELECTRICAL PARKING LOT PHOTOMETRICS - (LIGHT OF THE WORLD CHURCH)1/8" = 1'-0"EP1.0PHOTOMETRICS-ENGINEERINGH A L L B E R GLIGHT OF THE ELECTRICALPARKING LOTWORLD CHURCHDescriptionRev. DateSheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comC 2018 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comLarsonEngineering, Inc.R18-3203.000DJKJWV05.03.18PAUL J. FETTINGER, P.E.Date: Reg. No.:05.03.18 43079I hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly licensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the state of Minnesota.Project Title:LIGHT OF THEWORLD CHURCH6719 CEDAR LAKE ROADST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426Client: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Agenda Item: 4A REQUEST: Requested is approval of the resolution finding that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District, including the conveyance of certain property, conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Bridgewater Bank’s proposed plans to redevelop three underutilized properties at the northeast quadrant of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive and construct the Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center project as described in the Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan are in conformance with the future land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site which is MX-Mixed-Use. BACKGROUND: Bridgewater Bank (“Developer”) submitted plans to redevelop three properties totaling 2.42 acres located at the northeast corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive (“subject site”). Two of the properties, 4400 and 4424 Excelsior Boulevard are owned by Bridgewater Bank and are occupied by two vacant, structurally substandard, commercial buildings. The third parcel, 3743 Monterey Drive, is a vacant, remnant property owned by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) which the Developer has requested to purchase. CURRENT PROPOSAL: Bridgewater Bank proposes to raze the two structurally substandard buildings on the subject site and construct a 4-story, 84,000 gross square foot Class A office building that would serve as its corporate headquarters. The mixed-use building’s ground floor would include 7,500 square feet of retail space (including a restaurant), a 7,152 square foot bank branch, and a 4,700 square foot public area. The middle two floors would serve as the bank’s executive offices. The top floor would be occupied by a 19,775 square foot co-working entrepreneurial center designed to foster the growth and development of small businesses. The project would also feature a large pedestrian plaza at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive with extensive landscaping, outdoor seating, and space for public art. The plaza would provide open space and a protected area underneath a portion of the building. The ground floor retail and restaurant storefronts would face Excelsior Boulevard so as to activate the public realm. The proposed building also includes three levels of structured parking with approximately 280 stalls. The project will be constructed to meet the city’s Green Building and Building Readiness policies and consequently the Climate Action Plan. The Second Reading of the 4A. Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Location: 4424 and 4400 Excelsior Boulevard, 3743 Monterey Drive Applicant: Bridgewater Bank/Bridgewater Bancshares, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District is in conformance with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of St. Louis Park. Agenda Item No. 4A – The Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Page 2 Ordinance creating the PUD to allow construction of the proposed project on the subject site was approved by the City Council on June 4, 2018. Rendering of the proposed Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center Developer’s Request for Public Financing Assistance The Total Development Cost to construct the proposed office building is approximately $36 million. There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the subject site. These include: the remediation, demolition and disposal of the two substandard buildings, as well as soil excavation, correction, and shoring. Altogether, these costs exceed $2.4 million and prevent the proposed project from achieving a market rate of return. Consequently the Developer applied to the EDA for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the project to proceed. TIF uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance certain qualified redevelopment costs incurred during construction of that project for a limited period of time. Level and Type of Financial Assistance The Developer’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (ROR) related to the office project was reviewed by staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant). Based upon its analysis of the Developer’s financial proforma, Ehlers determined that the proposed building would not be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future but/for the provision of $950,000 in tax increment assistance. The proposed amount of TIF assistance is consistent with other redevelopments the EDA has assisted previously. The proposed tax increment would be generated by the Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center project itself and would only be provided once construction is completed and the Developer supplies statements verifying that it had incurred the specified qualified costs. Statutorily, the Agenda Item No. 4A – The Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Page 3 proposed tax increment assistance could only be provided to offset the project’s extraordinary expenses noted earlier. The EDA would be obligated to provide assistance to the project only to the extent that the project generates sufficient tax increment to make the bi-annual payments. Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property would be provided to the Developer in the form of a "pay-as-you-go" TIF Note which is the preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy. Upon completion, the proposed project would generate the proposed $950,000 in approximately 12 years. Estimated Increase in Property Value and Employment The current total market value of the subject redevelopment site is under $4.2 million. This is the District’s Base Value. The estimated market value of the site upon the proposed project’s completion (for TIF estimation purposes) is approximately $11.8 million. Discussion with the City Assessor indicates that the property’s value at construction completion and occupancy would likely be $18 to $20 million given current market conditions. This is well shy of the estimated construction cost of $36 million but cost does not necessarily translate to assessed value; particularly in cases where there are high extraordinary costs and build-to-suit office buildings with significant customized requirements, such as build-out, high security and vaults, which add minimal market value. Most of the new value would be captured as tax increment and used to make payments on the TIF Note until it is paid off and the TIF district is terminated. It is estimated that the Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center would generate approximately $443,500 in total property taxes annually. The city, county and school district would continue to receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s Base Value. Once the TIF Note is retired, the additional property taxes generated by the project would accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions. Bridgewater Bank expects to retain 20 FTE positions in St. Louis Park and estimates it will add 263 new FTE jobs to the city as a result of the proposed project. The majority of the positions will offer annual wages in excess of $60,000. TIF Application Review The EDA/city council received a staff report detailing the Developer’s Application for TIF Assistance at the April 23, 2018 Study Session. With no objections relative to staff’s findings and the recommended level of tax increment assistance, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed Bridgewater Bank TIF District and conveyance of property as well as prepare business terms for a formal purchase and redevelopment contract with Bridgewater Bank. TIF District Approvals At its May 7, 2018 meeting, the city council set a public hearing date of July 2, 2018 (subsequently rescheduled to July 16, 2018) for consideration of the proposed Redevelopment TIF District. The EDA will consider the approval of the proposed purchase and redevelopment contract on that same date. TIF District The subject site is located within the boundaries of the city’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city where TIF districts are statutorily authorized to be established. Inclusion of the proposed project within a designated Redevelopment Project Area allows the EDA/City Agenda Item No. 4A – The Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Page 4 Council to establish a TIF district so as to enable the EDA to provide the proposed financial assistance to the Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center project. As shown in the attached TIF District maps, the proposed Bridgewater Bank TIF District encompasses three parcels: 4424 and 4400 Excelsior Blvd, and 3743 Monterey Drive along with adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways. The proposed Bridgewater Bank TIF District meets the necessary statutory requirements of a Redevelopment TIF District as determined by LHB architects in its report: Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District: Bridgewater Bank TIF District dated June 12, 2018: Additional details pertaining to the proposed Bridgewater Bank TIF District may be found in the attached TIF Plan. Is the proposed TIF Plan in conformance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan? The Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District (attached) states that the proposed TIF district is being established to facilitate the construction of a four-story, 84,000 gross square foot office building with 64,648 square feet of office space, 7,530 square feet of retail/service space, a 7,152 square foot bank branch, and a 4,700 square foot lobby as well as structured parking. The current land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is MX- Mixed Use. This category allows for a mix of office and commercial uses. Agenda Item No. 4A – The Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Page 5 The subject site is suitable for the proposed redevelopment and the proposed redevelopment meets many of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the following goal listed in the Land Use section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Goal Expand the development of mixed-use areas within St. Louis Park to create a more livable and connected community. Strategy A: Encourage and support mixed-use infill and redevelopment where the design of the project enables compatibility with existing surrounding land uses. The proposed Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center project provides a mixture of office space as well as ground floor commercial and retail spaces (including a restaurant) promoting an active street frontage along Excelsior Boulevard, while maintaining a building scale appropriate to the surrounding commercial and residential uses. Project plans also include a pedestrian plaza at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive along with extensive landscaping, outdoor seating, and space for public art. The original plans for Excelsior & Grand/Park Commons East anticipated an office development at the location of the existing mixed-use building (4500 Excelsior Blvd) that includes Trader Joes. An office development has not yet been constructed within Park Commons East. The proposed Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center project would complete this vision, and establish a new daytime employment center adjacent to the Excelsior & Grand/Park Commons East development area that complements the neighboring land uses. On June 4, 2018, the city council approved the PUD for the Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center after finding that the redevelopment met the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and was suitable for the subject site. As a result the proposed Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center project is also allowable under the city’s Zoning Code. Requirement of Planning Commissions under the MN TIF Act The Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act requires planning commissions to determine if a proposed TIF district, and any conveyance of land therein, is in conformance with its city’s Comprehensive Plan. In light of the fact that land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject redevelopment site is Mixed Use, and the proposed project to be constructed on the subject site (as described in the attached Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank TIF District) is, in fact, mixed-use, the planning commission is being asked to find that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank TIF District conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Agenda Item No. 4A – The Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Page 6 Recommendation Staff and EDA legal counsel recommend approval of the resolution finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank TIF District, including the conveyance of certain property, conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Attachments: • Resolution of Approval • Bridgewater Bank TIF District Map • Tax Increment Financing Plan for Bridgewater Bank TIF District Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Agenda Item No. 4A – The Bridgewater Bank TIF District Plan Conformance to City’s Redevelopment Plans Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE BRIDGEWATER BANK TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of St. Louis Park (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subd. 2 requires the Commission to review the proposed acquisition or disposal of publicly-owned real property within the City prior to its acquisition or disposal, to determine whether in the opinion of the Commission, such acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans, including the conveyance of certain property within the TIF District by the EDA to Bridgewater Bank, or an affiliate thereof, to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans including the conveyance of certain property within the TIF District by the EDA to Bridgewater Bank, or an affiliate thereof, conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: June 20, 2018 ATTEST: Carl Robertson, Chair Sean Walther Planning and Zoning Supervisor 4400 4424 3743 KIPLINGEXCELSIOR38THMO N T E R E Y LYNNMERID IAN ´ Bridgewater BankTax Increment Financing District Legend Bridgewater Bank TIF District Parcels Roads May 15, 2018 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 150 0 15075 Feet The Bridgewater TIF District consists of these parcels: 4400 Excelsior Blvd PID: 06-028-24-43-0187 4424 Excelsior Blvd PID: 06-028-24-43-0064 3743 Monterey Dr PID: 06-028-24-43-0065 As of June 14, 2018 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: July 16, 2018 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 ........................................... 1-1 Foreword ............................................................. 1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District ....................... 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2 Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District........... 2-4 Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-6 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-7 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-7 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-8 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-9 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2-9 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-11 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-11 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-12 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-12 Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-13 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-14 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-14 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-15 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-15 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-15 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-15 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-16 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment . ................ 2-16 Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-17 Appendix A Project Description ...................................................... A-1 Appendix B Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District ........................... B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2-1. Foreword The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA", the City of St. Louis Park (the "City", staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District (the "District", a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act", to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan" for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of three parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the development of approximately 65,894 net square feet of office space, approximately 7,530 square feet of first floor retail space, and structured parking. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA has not entered into an agreement but anticipates entering into an agreement with Bridgewater Bank. Development is anticipated to start by the end of 2018. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - The EDA or City currently owns one parcel of property within the District. The remaining property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a)"Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: (i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; (ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (iii)have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph (e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; (2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and (4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f). (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. (f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • The District is a redevelopment district consisting of three parcels. • An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. •An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2020, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2045, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2018 for taxes payable 2019. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2020) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2019, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2019. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2020. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$476,857 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$82,698 Fiscal Disparities Contribution $134,957 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$259,202 Original Local Tax Rate 1.30191 Pay 2018 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $337,458 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25.The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $117,291. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a bond issue, pay-as-you-go note, and interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $5,561,826 Interest $556,183 TOTAL $6,118,009 The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $3,732,736. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the development of approximately 65,894 net square feet of office space, approximately 7,530 square feet of first floor retail space, and structured parking. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $750,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $1,250,000 Utilities $300,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $1,154,645 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$278,091 PROJECT COST TOTAL $3,732,736 Interest $2,385,273 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $6,118,009 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2017/Pay 2018 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,685,924,784 259,202 0.0154% City of St. Louis Park 63,328,213 259,202 0.4093% St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 60,061,614 259,202 0.4316% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Pay 2018 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Hennepin County 0.428080 32.88% 259,202 110,959 City of St. Louis Park 0.481010 36.95% 259,202 124,679 St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.286150 21.98% 259,202 74,171 Other 0.106670 8.19%259,202 27,649 Total 1.301910 100.00%337,458 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2018 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2018 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2019 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $5,561,826; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is not expected. The City police department does track all calls for service including property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service may be increased. New developments may add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. The new development is likely to generate some improvements to safety for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, including the elimination of left turns, the creation of a bike lane, and the moving of pedestrian traffic further away from Monterey Drive. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. The new development may generate additional calls for medical emergency service and will be of superior construction, including a fully-automated fire extinguishing system. The existing buildings, which will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District is expected to contribute to sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees. SAC determination will be done by the Metropolitan Council and verified during plan review. Current rates are $2,485 per SAC and $750 per WAC. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $1,222,489; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $1,828,728; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: • City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment (2015) • Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately July 2022 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District. Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the project area as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator. Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-15 the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28. Summary The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Bridgewater Bank Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 Appendix A Project Description Bridgewater Bank proposes to construct a four-story, 84,000 gross square foot office building that will serve as its corporate headquarters with approximately 65,000 square feet of office space, 7,530 square feet of retail/service space, a 7,150 square foot bank branch, and an outdoor plaza. The redevelopment includes structured parking to serve the office and retail spaces. The redevelopment comprises three parcels that are anticipated to be combined into a single parcel for the new building and parking. Bridgewater Bank currently owns two of the parcels and expects to acquire the third parcel from the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. The City intends to issue a PAYGO TIF Note to offset qualified costs related to the redevelopment of the site. Appendix A-1 Appendix B Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District Appendix B-1 ´ Bridgewater BankTax Increment Financing District Legend Bridgewater Bank TIF District Redevelopment Project Area No 1 Parcels May 15, 2018 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles Bridgewater Bank TIF District 4400 4424 3743 KIPLINGEXCELSIOR38THMO N T E R E Y LYNNMERID IAN ´ Bridgewater BankTax Increment Financing District Legend Bridgewater Bank TIF District Parcels Roads May 15, 2018 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 150 0 15075 Feet The Bridgewater TIF District consists of these parcels: 4400 Excelsior Blvd PID: 06-028-24-43-0187 4424 Excelsior Blvd PID: 06-028-24-43-0064 3743 Monterey Dr PID: 06-028-24-43-0065 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 06-028-24-43-0064 4424 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0065*3743 Monterey Dr St. Louis Park EDA 06-028-24-43-0187 4400 Excelsior Blvd.Bridgewater Bancshares Inc. The City anticipates combining the three parcels into a single new parcel with this redevelopment. *This parcel is currently located in the Park Commons TIF District (County Identifier 1308) and will be removed for inclusion in the District prior to certification. Appendix C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Appendix D-1 5/18/2018Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Bridgewater Bank HeadquartersCity of St. Louis Park65,894 SF Office & 7,530 SF First Floor RetailASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) 0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2018Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst$150,0001.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over$150,0002.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-19Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-20Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2019First$115,0000.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2020Over$115,0000.25%Years of Tax Increment26Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2045First$500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over$500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio34.2393% Pay 2018First$500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate145.0950% Pay 2018Over$500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 130.191% Pay 2018Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)130.191%Pay 2018State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 43.8650% Pay 2018Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 0.19722% Pay 2018Building Total Percentage Tax Year PropertyCurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market ValueValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax CapacityConversion Orig. Tax Cap.106‐028‐24‐43‐0064Bridgewater Bank4424 Excelsior Blvd501,600 520,800 1,022,400100% 1,022,400 Pay 2019 C/I Pref.19,698 C/I Pref.19,698 1206‐028‐24‐43‐0187Bridgewater Bank4400 Excelsior Blvd1,696,800 1,053,200 2,750,000100% 2,750,000 Pay 2019 C/I55,000 C/I55,000 1306‐028‐24‐43‐0065SLP EDA 3743 Monterey Dr400,0000 400,000100% 400,000 Pay 2019 Exempt- C/I8,000 12,598,400 1,574,000 4,172,4004,172,400 74,69882,698Note:1. The Bridgewater property base values are for Pay 2019 per County website 5-9-18. The EDA property base value is per the City Assessor on 8-23-17.2. Located in SD 283 and WD 3Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Bridgewater Bank TIF District\TIF Run 5-9-18 - FINAL 5/18/2018Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Bridgewater Bank HeadquartersCity of St. Louis Park65,894 SF Office & 7,530 SF First Floor RetailEstimated TaxableTotal Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/PhaseNew UsePer Sq. Ft./UnitPer Sq. Ft./UnitSq. Ft./UnitsValueClassTax CapacityCapacity/Unit2018201920202021Payable1 Bank Office 150 150 38,967 5,845,050 C/I Pref. 116,151 3 50% 100% 100% 100% 20211 Bank Facility 150 150 7,152 1,072,800 C/I 21,456 3 50% 100% 100% 100% 20211 Tenant Office 150 150 19,775 2,966,250 C/I 59,325 3 50% 100% 100% 100% 20211 Retail 250 250 7,530 1,882,500 C/I 37,650 5 50% 100% 100% 100% 2021TOTAL11,766,600 234,582 Subtotal Residential00 0 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.73,424 11,766,600 234,582 Note:1. Market values based on information provided by City Assessor on 8-23-17.TotalFiscal LocalLocalFiscal State-wideMarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitBank Office 116,151 39,769 76,382 99,442 57,703 50,95011,528 219,6235.64Bank Facility21,4567,34614,110 18,369 10,6599,4122,11640,5565.67Tenant Office 59,325 20,312 39,013 50,791 29,472 26,0235,850 112,1365.67Retail 37,650 12,891 24,759 32,234 18,704 16,5153,71371,1669.45TOTAL234,58280,319154,263200,836116,539102,89923,206443,481Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes443,481Current Market Value - Est.4,172,400less State-wide Taxes(102,899)New Market Value - Est.11,766,600less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(116,539) Difference7,594,200less Market Value Taxes(23,206)Present Value of Tax Increment3,062,036less Base Value Taxes(70,801) Difference4,532,164Annual Gross TIF 130,035Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:4,532,164 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Bridgewater Bank TIF District\TIF Run 5-9-18 - FINAL 5/18/2018Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Bridgewater Bank HeadquartersCity of St. Louis Park65,894 SF Office & 7,530 SF First Floor RetailTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin.Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% ofTaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%5% IncrementValueYrs.Year Date- - - - 02/01/20100% 117,291 (82,698) (11,844) 22,749 130.191% 29,617 14,808 (53) (738) 14,017 13,473 0.5 2020 08/01/20100% 117,291 (82,698) (11,844) 22,749 130.191% 29,617 14,808 (53) (738) 14,017 26,682 1 2020 02/01/21100% 234,582 (82,698) (52,004) 99,880 130.191% 130,035 65,017 (234) (3,239) 61,544 83,539 1.5 2021 08/01/21100% 234,582 (82,698) (52,004) 99,880 130.191% 130,035 65,017 (234) (3,239) 61,544 139,281 2 2021 02/01/22100% 241,619 (82,698) (54,414) 104,508 130.191% 136,060 68,030 (245) (3,389) 64,396 196,463 2.5 2022 08/01/22100% 241,619 (82,698) (54,414) 104,508 130.191% 136,060 68,030 (245) (3,389) 64,396 252,523 3 2022 02/01/23100% 248,868 (82,698) (56,895) 109,275 130.191% 142,266 71,133 (256) (3,544) 67,333 309,991 3.5 2023 08/01/23100% 248,868 (82,698) (56,895) 109,275 130.191% 142,266 71,133 (256) (3,544) 67,333 366,333 4 2023 02/01/24100% 256,334 (82,698) (59,452) 114,184 130.191% 148,658 74,329 (268) (3,703) 70,358 424,051 4.5 2024 08/01/24100% 256,334 (82,698) (59,452) 114,184 130.191% 148,658 74,329 (268) (3,703) 70,358 480,637 5 2024 02/01/25100% 264,024 (82,698) (62,085) 119,241 130.191% 155,241 77,621 (279) (3,867) 73,474 538,571 5.5 2025 08/01/25100% 264,024 (82,698) (62,085) 119,241 130.191% 155,241 77,621 (279) (3,867) 73,474 595,369 6 2025 02/01/26100% 271,945 (82,698) (64,797) 124,450 130.191% 162,023 81,011 (292) (4,036) 76,684 653,486 6.5 2026 08/01/26100% 271,945 (82,698) (64,797) 124,450 130.191% 162,023 81,011 (292) (4,036) 76,684 710,463 7 2026 02/01/27100% 280,103 (82,698) (67,590) 129,815 130.191% 169,007 84,504 (304) (4,210) 79,990 768,731 7.5 2027 08/01/27100% 280,103 (82,698) (67,590) 129,815 130.191% 169,007 84,504 (304) (4,210) 79,990 825,857 8 2027 02/01/28100% 288,506 (82,698) (70,467) 135,341 130.191% 176,202 88,101 (317) (4,389) 83,395 884,246 8.5 2028 08/01/28100% 288,506 (82,698) (70,467) 135,341 130.191% 176,202 88,101 (317) (4,389) 83,395 941,491 9 2028 02/01/29100% 297,161 (82,698) (73,431) 141,033 130.191% 183,612 91,806 (331) (4,574) 86,902 999,973 9.5 2029 08/01/29100% 297,161 (82,698) (73,431) 141,033 130.191% 183,612 91,806 (331) (4,574) 86,902 1,057,309 10 2029 02/01/30100% 306,076 (82,698) (76,483) 146,895 130.191% 191,244 95,622 (344) (4,764) 90,514 1,115,857 10.5 2030 08/01/30100% 306,076 (82,698) (76,483) 146,895 130.191% 191,244 95,622 (344) (4,764) 90,514 1,173,257 11 2030 02/01/31100% 315,259 (82,698) (79,627) 152,933 130.191% 199,106 99,553 (358) (4,960) 94,235 1,231,844 11.5 2031 08/01/31100% 315,259 (82,698) (79,627) 152,933 130.191% 199,106 99,553 (358) (4,960) 94,235 1,289,283 12 2031 02/01/32100% 324,716 (82,698) (82,865) 159,153 130.191% 207,203 103,601 (373) (5,161) 98,067 1,347,886 12.5 2032 08/01/32100% 324,716 (82,698) (82,865) 159,153 130.191% 207,203 103,601 (373) (5,161) 98,067 1,405,340 13 2032 02/01/33100% 334,458 (82,698) (86,201) 165,559 130.191% 215,543 107,771 (388) (5,369) 102,014 1,463,934 13.5 2033 08/01/33100% 334,458 (82,698) (86,201) 165,559 130.191% 215,543 107,771 (388) (5,369) 102,014 1,521,380 14 2033 02/01/34100% 344,492 (82,698) (89,636) 172,157 130.191% 224,133 112,067 (403) (5,583) 106,080 1,579,943 14.5 2034 08/01/34100% 344,492 (82,698) (89,636) 172,157 130.191% 224,133 112,067 (403) (5,583) 106,080 1,637,359 15 2034 02/01/35100% 354,826 (82,698) (93,175) 178,953 130.191% 232,981 116,491 (419) (5,804) 110,268 1,695,871 15.5 2035 08/01/35100% 354,826 (82,698) (93,175) 178,953 130.191% 232,981 116,491 (419) (5,804) 110,268 1,753,235 16 2035 02/01/36100% 365,471 (82,698) (96,820) 185,954 130.191% 242,095 121,047 (436) (6,031) 114,581 1,811,675 16.5 2036 08/01/36100% 365,471 (82,698) (96,820) 185,954 130.191% 242,095 121,047 (436) (6,031) 114,581 1,868,968 17 2036 02/01/37100% 376,435 (82,698) (100,574) 193,164 130.191% 251,482 125,741 (453) (6,264) 119,024 1,927,317 17.5 2037 08/01/37100% 376,435 (82,698) (100,574) 193,164 130.191% 251,482 125,741 (453) (6,264) 119,024 1,984,521 18 2037 02/01/38100% 387,728 (82,698) (104,440) 200,590 130.191% 261,150 130,575 (470) (6,505) 123,600 2,042,759 18.5 2038 08/01/38100% 387,728 (82,698) (104,440) 200,590 130.191% 261,150 130,575 (470) (6,505) 123,600 2,099,856 19 2038 02/01/39100% 399,360 (82,698) (108,423) 208,239 130.191% 271,109 135,554 (488) (6,753) 128,313 2,157,968 19.5 2039 08/01/39100% 399,360 (82,698) (108,423) 208,239 130.191% 271,109 135,554 (488) (6,753) 128,313 2,214,940 20 2039 02/01/40100% 411,341 (82,698) (112,525) 216,118 130.191% 281,366 140,683 (506) (7,009) 133,168 2,272,909 20.5 2040 08/01/40100% 411,341 (82,698) (112,525) 216,118 130.191% 281,366 140,683 (506) (7,009) 133,168 2,329,740 21 2040 02/01/41100% 423,681 (82,698) (116,750) 224,233 130.191% 291,931 145,966 (525) (7,272) 138,168 2,387,550 21.5 2041 08/01/41100% 423,681 (82,698) (116,750) 224,233 130.191% 291,931 145,966 (525) (7,272) 138,168 2,444,226 22 2041 02/01/42100% 436,392 (82,698) (121,102) 232,591 130.191% 302,813 151,407 (545) (7,543) 143,318 2,501,862 22.5 2042 08/01/42100% 436,392 (82,698) (121,102) 232,591 130.191% 302,813 151,407 (545) (7,543) 143,318 2,558,368 23 2042 02/01/43100% 449,483 (82,698) (125,585) 241,201 130.191% 314,022 157,011 (565) (7,822) 148,623 2,615,817 23.5 2043 08/01/43100% 449,483 (82,698) (125,585) 241,201 130.191% 314,022 157,011 (565) (7,822) 148,623 2,672,139 24 2043 02/01/44100% 462,968 (82,698) (130,202) 250,068 130.191% 325,566 162,783 (586) (8,110) 154,087 2,729,386 24.5 2044 08/01/44100% 462,968 (82,698) (130,202) 250,068 130.191% 325,566 162,783 (586) (8,110) 154,087 2,785,511 25 2044 02/01/45100% 476,857 (82,698) (134,957) 259,202 130.191% 337,457 168,729 (607) (8,406) 159,715 2,842,546 25.5 2045 08/01/45100% 476,857 (82,698) (134,957) 259,202 130.191% 337,457 168,729 (607) (8,406) 159,715 2,898,462 26 2045 02/01/46 Total5,581,921 (20,095) (278,091) 5,283,735 Present Value From 08/01/2019 Present Value Rate 4.00%3,062,036 (11,023) (152,551) 2,898,462 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Bridgewater Bank TIF District\TIF Run 5-9-18 - FINAL Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Appendix E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District To be added to prior to the public hearing Appendix F-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications To be added to prior to the public hearing But-For Analysis Current Market Value 4,172,400 New Market Value - Estimate 11,766,600 Difference 7,594,200 Present Value of Tax Increment 3,062,036 Difference 4,532,164 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 4,532,164 Appendix G-1 RESOLUTION NO. 93 RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK PLANNING COMMISSION In Recognition of Your Two Years and Three Months of Distinguished Service Toward Planning the Future of the City of St. Louis Park including Service as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission The Planning Commission Hereby Provides This Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation To TORREY KANNE Adopted by the Planning Commission June 20, 2018 ___________________________ ____________________________ Lynne Carper Jessica Kraft ___________________________ ____________________________ Claudia Johnston-Madison Carl Robertson ___________________________ ____________________________ Lisa Peilen Joe Tatalovich ATTEST: ____________________________ Matt Eckholm ___________________________ Sean J. Walther, AICP Planning and Zoning Supervisor RESOLUTION NO. 94 RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK PLANNING COMMISSION In Recognition of Your Twelve Years and Three Months of Distinguished Service Toward Planning the Future of the City of St. Louis Park including Service as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission The Planning Commission Hereby Provides This Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation To RICHARD PERSON Adopted by the Planning Commission June 20, 2018 ___________________________ ____________________________ Lynne Carper Jessica Kraft ___________________________ ____________________________ Claudia Johnston-Madison Carl Robertson ___________________________ ____________________________ Lisa Peilen Joe Tatalovich ATTEST: ____________________________ Matt Eckholm ___________________________ Sean J. Walther, AICP Planning and Zoning Supervisor