The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015/10/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2015 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of September 16, 2015 3. Other Business A. Consideration of Resolution - 4900 Excelsior TIF District Conformance with Comprehensive Plan 4. Hearings A. APPLICATION WITHDRAWN Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for Proposed Daycare Location: 2460 Highway 100 Applicant: Alise McGregor Case No.: 15-43-CP and 15-44-Z B. Westside Center – Preliminary and Final Plat; Conditional Use Permit to Import Fill Location: 5320 W. 23rd St. Applicant: COB, LLC c/o Hillcrest Development, LLLP Case Nos.: 15-40-CUP and 15-41-S 5. Communications A. Proposed Annual Meeting with Council Program 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 952/924-2575 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Phil Elkin 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of August 19, 2015 Commissioner Johnston-Madison moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1 (Kramer abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development Arlington Row Apts. West Location: Southwest corner Wayzata Blvd. and Texas Ave. Applicant: Melrose Company Case No.: 15-29-CP, 15-30-S and 15-31-PUD Ryan Kelley, Planner, presented the staff report. He provided a history of the property. Mr. Kelley discussed the Comprehensive Plan evaluation. He noted that concerns from the neighborhood meeting of August 12, 2005 included increase in traffic, on-street parking, addition of rental units to the area, development of currently vacant land, and assurance of landscaping. He discussed the traffic study completed by SRF Consulting. He said that study compared existing conditions with projected conditions. The study concluded that with the projected developments there is no change in the overall or individual segments to the letter grade of the intersection level of service. The impact occurs at northbound Texas Ave. to Wayzata Blvd., where the average delay during the p.m. peak period is projected to increase by 6 seconds. Neither the traffic study nor City Engineering staff recommend any changes in traffic control in the area. Mr. Kelley reviewed the preliminary and final plat analysis. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Kelley reviewed the Planned Unit Development analysis. Mr. Kelley introduced Phil Elkin, City Engineering staff; Robert Cunningham, Melrose Companies; and Mike Engel, ESG Architects. Commissioner Peilen asked about the proposal for surface parking only. Mr. Kelley responded that underground or structured parking has significant cost impacts and the developer is trying to control costs by providing surface parking. Commissioner Carper asked about guest parking, after hours parking, or other parking lots available. Mr. Kelley spoke about some on-street parking available on Wayzata Blvd. He said City Code requires 1 parking space/bedroom and within that 10% of those spaces are for guest parking. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she understood that the proposal is for a small number of units but having traveled through that area she’s seen how difficult it is to make left hand turns from Texas onto the frontage road. She asked if there has been any discussion for signalization. Mr. Kelley spoke about city trip generation data collection done for an unrelated recent stop sign request as well as for this recent study. Out of the city data and the recent study neither a stop sign or traffic signal was warranted. Mr. Elkin provided additional details on traffic counts and traffic study. Commissioner Rickert asked about construction timing for the two buildings. Robert Cunningham, Melrose Company, applicant, responded the buildings will be built at the same time but with sequencing of construction stages. It is expected they will be completed within a couple months of each other. Mr. Cunningham said a lot of consideration was given to fit the project into the existing neighborhood with a residential feel with gable roofs, façade articulation, and density. He spoke about creating a different niche in the marketplace by creating a new Class A product without structured parking, swimming pool, club room and rooftop decks. The development will have more of a traditional living arrangement with two level units. Commissioner Carper asked about charging ports for electric cars. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Cunningham said charging ports would be available, hopefully through solar power. He added that the development will be built without any city assistance. He said he does have a grant in to the Metropolitan Council for two additional environmental elements. One is for solar powered LED lighting on all common areas. The other grant is for ground source geo-thermal systems. Chair Person opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Alan Gibson, 1320 Westwood Hills Rd., representing Skyehill Townhome Association and Board, said that townhome residents bought next to an R-1 exposure. He said many residents are upset because the land was considered to be a green space. He said the townhome development is 100% owner occupied. He said the association had existing issues already. He said they have met numerous times on this topic as an association, as a board, and as residents at the neighborhood meeting. They have also had meetings with Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Gibson said if the association had an option the property would remain R-1. He said concerns with the proposal regard traffic and parking, on-street parking, and screening. He said the association does not feel the current plan provides sufficient on-site parking. He cited City Code regulations for multi-family residential parking. He spoke about existing problems with on-street parking which creates an impossible site line turning northbound on Texas. He spoke about taking a micro look at traffic for a very short period of time. He said when you live there for a long period you experience long delays in turning off of Westwood Hills on to Texas and another delay going north on Wayzata. He said this happens all the time. He would like the city to consider some type of traffic control to alleviate that. He added that there is no sequencing of traffic on Wayzata Blvd. Mr. Gibson said in meetings with Mr. Cunningham they explained the screening on the south is appropriate. He submitted a letter dated Sept. 16, 2015, from Mr. Cunningham to the association regarding Melrose’s agreement to place screening materials on either the Melrose parcel of the townhome parcel in a mutually agreed fashion at the southwest corner of the Melrose property. Mr. Gibson stated the following recommendations of the association: 1) traffic control at Wayzata and Texas; 2) additional review of on-site parking (1 parking spot/apartment plus 10%); 3) removal of parking on the west curb line of Texas from Wayzata to Westwood Hills which needs to happen anyway for safety; and 4) recognition that neighborhood parking is inadequate currently; and overflow apartment parking will end up on Westwood Hills driveway. Mr. Gibson added the association would like the Commission to request that staff communicate on Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 4 the overall parking options such as no parking, timed parking, or permitted parking to eliminate the impact. He added that part of the PUD process is that every possible effort is made to address adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Ave. S., said the development does have an attractive human scale which meets a lot of the Comprehensive Plan attributes. He remarked that the lot could have been a lot of other uses such as gas station or commercial use. He said his issue is that the proposal would go from low density as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He said we shouldn’t take the Comprehensive Plan so lightly and change the zoning regulations when a developer brings about a project. Mr. Miller suggested it would be great to get together with a neighborhood and all the other stakeholders well before a developer comes with a plan for a lot. He noted that affordable single family homes are hard to come by in the city. He spoke about traffic being a large concern to the neighborhood. He said he didn’t personally think the 34 units would make a huge impact in a neighborhood of thousands of homes that use Texas Ave. He added that the neighborhood feels there are lots of traffic and parking problems and he suggested a more comprehensive traffic and parking study. Mr. Miller recommended that the Planning Commission not move forward on the request until further discussions with all stakeholders happen. Jerry Sheehan, 7728 W. 13 ½ Street, stated he was never notified about the neighborhood meeting or public hearing. He stated that building this project will turn the whole area into an Uptown with no businesses and all on-street parking. He stated that such a development would be a traffic jam that will interfere with any projects and will impede emergency vehicles. Barry Rohweder, 1401 Texas Ave. S., said he purchased his home in 1992 and at that time the south half of the subject parcel was zoned R-1 and the north half was commercial space. He said after the DOT purchased it the parcel became R-1. He said he was shocked that the proposal had come this far. He said the traffic at that intersection is horrible. He said the bike lane will be a possible restriction from parking on one side of Texas, which means cars will be parked on Texas Ave. for 5-6 blocks. He said another proposed development to the east will add another 40 households so potentially there will be 74 households within two blocks of his home. Mr. Rohweder said he doesn’t see how that makes sense for the neighbors in that community. He said there will be adverse effects for the neighborhood and adjacent properties. He said the Met Council grant money that the developer mentioned is tax dollars. He said the proposal does not fit the 1992 long range plans, doesn’t fit the 1997 plan, and is not part of the 2012 long range plan. Mr. Rohweder stated he hopes the Planning Commission will reject the plan as it is. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 5 Karen Boole, 7711 13th Lane, said the area is currently congested. She stated that six years ago the city was looking for community input. The neighborhood met with the city at the Rec Center and areas of proposed development were displayed. She said at that time she proposed a community garden in the subject property. She said the city paid lip service to the neighborhood wanting input at that time. She said that input was ignored and the city proceeded with accepting a proposal that is not friendly to the neighborhood. Ms. Boole spoke about LED lighting used by the Halston Company across the highway. She said the bright blue LED lighting blares into the windows of 13th Lane residents. She said the developer has proposed LED lighting in a residential neighborhood. She said green spaces are needed in neighborhoods for quality of life. She said that is being eroded and she wanted the Commission to carefully consider leaving green spaces in St. Louis Park. Sarah Borgendale, 1821 Texas, said she understands the traffic concerns at the intersection. She said another consideration is safety and the middle school location with many students and their families walking, as well as other pedestrian traffic, and many cars dropping off students. She said the traffic study was done during the summer and traffic patterns change during the school year. She said there are implications for the rest of the community just south of the development intersection. Ted Johnson, 7737 W. 13 ½ St., asked the Planning Commission their proximity to the proposed development. He spoke about current congestion. He said the development will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, including property values, traffic congestion and parking problems. He said he was concerned about the developer’s desire to keep costs down and he asked if the development would be Section 8 residential. He said he was concerned about rental and short-term residents and the lack of community investment. He said the construction done in 2000 on 14th St. of single family town home construction seemed to fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said he sees the proposal as a bad decision. Kim Opitz, 8001 W. Franklin Ave., spoke about the Texas/Franklin intersection. She said any time of day cars roll through the intersection and speed up and down Texas. She said at the neighborhood meeting they were told the traffic study indicated there would be minimal impact from the development. She said from her corner it is very clear that even a minimal increase in traffic is too much. She said she represents about five families with 15 children at that corner. As there was no one else present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 6 Commissioner Robertson asked the total daily count at the intersection from the traffic study. Mr. Kelley responded the count on Texas Ave. was an average of 4500 vehicles/day. Commissioner Robertson discussed the 1 parking space/bedroom criteria. He said the city has worked on that for many years with many developments and developers. He said that number is used because it works. He said he doesn’t see people parking on the street from this proposal. He said he understands worries about extra parking. He said from everything known about design and development the on-site parking works. Commissioner Robertson said there are existing traffic issues but they aren’t germane to the proposed project. He said he felt the project was well designed at a considerate scale. He said the site has been studied by the city for years. There have been a lot of changes since the early 90s. A higher density at a corner frontage road makes sense. It’s a buffer between the freeway and single family residential. Low level site lighting will be used, not advertising lighting. He said part of the site is vacant and part is green space. The hillside will be maintained. He said millennials are less apt to purchase houses these days. The city wants to provide diverse housing stock. Not everyone wants a single family home or higher end all amenity type apartments. He said it is a nice, thoughtful use of the land. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the development fits a niche that is needed in St. Louis Park. She said she thinks the on-site parking is resolved through the plan. She said the Commission is hearing from residents over and over that they are sick of the amount of traffic on our roads today. She said there is a difference between studies saying the road can accommodate a certain number and the reality for those who live there. She said as a city and Planning Commission we need to start looking at projects and asking is this really what we want for the city. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she would like to see traffic worked on in general. Commissioner Peilen said she agreed that the city probably does need to look at traffic. She said with the Hwy. 100 construction congestion is happening in all areas of the city. She stated that a lot of people now are renters by choice. She said there are a lot of great renters out there and they are part of a mix of any community. She said she agrees with Commissioner Robertson’s comments about the proposed development. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Elkin spoke about the conditions the state requires for installation of a 4-way stop or traffic control signals. He added that the intersection is heavily impacted by the Hwy. 100 reroute. He said that the traffic study which was done for the proposal was not a snap shot. He said he believes they have a good indication of what the wait time is. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of preliminary and final plat. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Arlington Row Apartments West preliminary and final Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Kramer added an amendment to the motion that the Commission can’t ignore the consequences of the traffic there and acknowledge that something should be done. Commissioner Robertson accepted the amendment. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote 7-0. Mr. Walther noted that the request is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on October 19. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Location: 3601 Huntington Ave. S. Applicant: Michael Edlavitch Case No.: 15-36-CP and 15-37-Z Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Mr. Morrison reviewed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use map. He spoke about the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. Guidelines accepted by the City Council in April, 2015. He read from the introduction of the guidelines which outline the role and intent. He stated that the applicant’s intent is to modify the existing home and convert it to a coffee shop. The garage and porch would be removed, and a new parking lot constructed behind the building. Mr. Morrison stated that concerns expressed at the Sept. 9 neighborhood meeting regarded traffic cutting through the neighborhood, commercial parking spilling over into the neighborhood and pedestrian safety. Design Guidelines were also discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Morrison said a number of letters Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 8 expressing opposition to the request were provided in the staff report to Commissioners. Additional letters of opposition were distributed to Commissioners from: Stephanie and Peter Schmidt, 3601 Huntington; Betsy Tarnowski, 3901 Natchez; Kris Aaker, 3675 Huntington; Scott Affeldt, 3651 Huntington; Neil and June Petrie; Wayne and Sherry McChesney, 3658 Huntington; Diane and Ed Enebo, 3615 Huntington; as well as a petition signed by 80 residents opposing the request. Mr. Morrison read a summary of some goals from the Comprehensive Plan that may guide the City on whether or not to change the land use designation from RM Medium Density Residential to COM Commercial. He read an excerpt from the Design Guidelines which recommends that the two blocks located between Glenhurst Ave. and Inglewood Ave. should remain residential. He noted that the Design Guidelines are not a mandate but offer some direction for discussion. Mr. Morrison stated that staff is recommending denial of the application. He reviewed staff findings. Commissioner Peilen asked about parking spaces, screening and hours of operation. Commissioner Carper asked the distance of the property to the nearest residence. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said he was a participant and helped lead the consultant and task force for the Design Guidelines. He said he wanted to state for context that the land use and zoning of the properties along the corridor were not part of the Design Guidelines scope of work. Any description in the Guidelines of land use related to existing conditions and existing land use guidance and zoning. While several resident members of the Task Force indicated an openness to potential zoning/use changes on these two blocks, it was not discussed in any detail what zoning the Task Force would consider appropriate. Mr. Edlavitch asked Mr. Morrison to identify land uses of several adjacent properties. He asked Mr. Morrison if it appeared the corner was strictly a single family corner. Mr. Morrison responded that as it exists today it is a single family home and if it changes that would be at the discretion of Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Edlavitch asked which of the adjacent Neighborhood Commercial properties needed a Conditional Use Permit. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Morrison responded that in the C-1 Commercial District it often comes down to lot coverage, hours of operation, or the intensity for which it was developed. It is possible to develop a property without a Conditional Use Permit as long as it stays below those thresholds. Mr. Edlavitch asked if all those are possible without a Conditional Use Permit. He asked if a Sexually Oriented Business would then be allowed next to his property without a City Council vote. Mr. Morrison said it would be allowed as permitted with conditions which means it is administrative and wouldn’t go to Planning Commission or City Council. Mr. Edlavitch said number of parking spaces would be 9 on-site, and two on the street. He spoke about a previous plan which didn’t work with the Design Guidelines as it proposed parking between a house and a street (Huntington Ave.). He said something that came up as a big concern at the neighborhood meeting was perception of lack of parking. The parking requirement for the whole building was 6.6 and his understanding from staff is that 7 would be sufficient for a coffee shop and he would provide 11. Mr. Edlavitch presented two illustrations of the proposed coffee shop. Mr. Edlavitch read from the Comprehensive Plan and Livable Community. He said historic preservation was left out of the staff analysis. He said land use plan was also left out of the staff analysis. He said land use plan would dictate the city’s feeling for rezoning. He read from B.1. Land Use Plan from the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that he wanted to read this as it includes things that came up at the neighborhood meeting. He said the neighborhood needs to go more into this and it is part of the reason the neighborhood needs a gathering space because there was a lot of miscommunication. He read from B.5. Human Scale Development. He read from B.3. Higher Density Mixed Use Development. Mr. Edlavitch said he believes residents in the neighborhood go out for coffee a lot. Some of the different locations require getting into the car and driving there. Mr. Edlavitch spoke about community gathering places. He spoke about the former Kitty Wampus site on Excelsior Blvd. which is now Bridgewater Bank. He noted that parks are great community gathering places. He spoke about Minnesota winters and the lack of places to gather with children. Mr. Edlavitch read from B.8 Public Gathering Places. He read from Public Art and Heritage. He stated he was on the Design Guidelines task force. He said he Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 10 tried to abstain from a lot of decisions such as where parking would be located. He said because of the new guidelines he no longer can put parking between the house and street which has affected his parking plans. He said he bought the house two years ago. Mr. Edlavitch spoke about the zoning application and said the city over accommodates parking. He said he believes there are too many parking spaces in St. Louis Park and the parking lots are too big. He said for two years he has been canvassing the neighborhood about a gathering space. No one takes a proposal seriously until site plans and applications are made. As far as zoning he said he is providing 9 wide spaces. Commissioner Carper asked if the home was occupied. Mr. Edlavitch responded it is occupied by three renters. Commissioner Robertson said he always steps back from the proposal to look at the big picture with changes to Comprehensive Plan and zoning. He said the request doesn’t stand on its own. Commissioner Kramer said he wished to reaffirm Commissioner Robertson’s remarks that the discussion is about changing from residential to commercial. It is not about a coffee shop, screening, parking, or vision. It’s about the change and he said he sees no merit to change it. Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Ave. S., said he attended the neighborhood meeting. He said he respects Mr. Edlavitch’s proposal. He said it is a problem to make the change from residential to commercial. James Batchelor, 3642 Huntington Ave., said the neighborhood isn’t mad about the idea or vision, but they oppose changing to commercial property. He submitted a petition signed by 80 neighbors in opposition to the applications. Dennis Gimmestad, 3638 Huntington Ave., stated he has lived there since 1988. In the first two years when he lived there Excelsior & Grand was developed and Excelsior Blvd. streetscape project was installed. He said both projects are so dependent on their location, unlike a lot of projects built during that period that were out in a cornfield in an outer suburb. The reason both Excelsior & Grand and the streetscape project have done so well is that they integrate residential, commercial and recreational land uses. He said that is what an inner ring suburb has as a treasure. He said the way the zoning supports the integration of the land uses along Excelsior Blvd. is something that needs to be protected. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 11 Kris Aaker, 3675 Huntington, said her letter of opposition is included in the Commission packet. She said she supports the staff report, staff recommendation and the comments of the Commission. Jaye Thompson, 3707 Glenhurst, said she believes the applicants have a great intent and outstanding vision for the neighborhood. She said Excelsior Blvd. is run amok with commercial and she doesn’t understand the objection to this request. She said long term what the applicant is proposing will last. He has such a historic presence and she is excited for what could be the neighborhood. She would go to this gathering place with her children. She said the neighborhood needs some bonding. She said other coffee shops are difficult to get to for pedestrians with children, or the shops are too small. She said she supports the request and supports the applicant. Ms. Thompson said she thought the way the applicant’s presentation was handled was disrespectful and that time- crunching the applicant wasn’t good. She said she doesn’t like the process. She said all applicants should get the time they need for presentation. Mary Beth Steiner, 3641 Huntington, said she respects the applicant. She said there are several different places to go as a neighborhood community. She said neighbors can walk to Honey and Rye, Starbucks, Mill Valley, Caribou, Ben and Jerry’s, YogurtLab, and Dairy Queen. She said there is no need for a coffee shop. She said the neighbors do get together all the time. They walk places together. They have block parties. She said she moved to this block because of community and she doesn’t want it to be disrupted by this function on the corner. Diane Enebo, 3615 Huntington, said she lives next door to the site. If a coffee shop was permitted there she would look at a parking lot from her living room. She spoke about exhaust. She said the drawings were lovely and she knows the yard well. She said there isn’t room for the green space, trees and bushes. She said there isn’t room for a wall. She mentioned problems with hours of operation. She spoke about the egress coming off of Huntington Ave. She spoke about problems with vehicles using the alley and numbers of small children who live on the block. Melissa Buss, 3545 Glenhurst Ave., lives directly across from the alley. She said the neighborhood is very concerned about parking for 9 cars. She said on her block there are 17 children under the age of 10. She said on Huntington there are 20 children. Drivers already use the alley to cut through. The concern is increased traffic down the alley and safety in general for pedestrians and for children. Ms. Buss said the request is contrary to the Design Guidelines. She said she was shocked to learn that a Sexually Oriented Business could move in to this space if it was changed to commercial. She said as St. Louis Park is generally going through a lot of development she would encourage the Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 12 Commission to make every effort to consider traffic and to reduce adverse effect on their neighborhood and families. Neil Petrie, 3536 Glenhurst Ave., stated he is opposed to the request. He said independent of the number of parking spaces or how a commercial business ends up, he lives at the other end of the alley that connects. He said the side of his house has an exit straight onto the alley. He distributed a letter outlining his concerns to the Commission. John Angier, 4014 Raleigh, said the best use for the building would be a community meeting place/coffee shop. He said he didn’t think it would be a very good family home. It is an historic building and would be a good place to leisurely meet with neighbors. Sue Ainsworth, 3916 Kipling, said she understands concerns about what the site could become. She said she was patient and didn’t complain when Dairy Queen was built. She said she wanted to remind people that many of the businesses at Excelsior & Grand have turned over and over. She said she prefers local and small businesses. She said she is a small business owner and small businesses have a very difficult time in St. Louis Park. She said she supports the proposal. She said if the applicant sells the house there is no guarantee that it wouldn’t become a McMansion or a home the neighbors don’t like. Ms. Ainsworth stated that commercial isn’t automatically bad. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson said no disrespect was meant to the applicant during his presentation. He added that the chair’s job is to keep the meeting moving along. He said the job of the commission is to look at the big picture and he is not comfortable changing the property to commercial. Commissioner Carper said he supports the Comprehensive Plan, zoning map, and Design Guidelines as they exist. He said if in the future it is going to be made commercial it needs to be done as part of the next Comprehensive Plan. He said he is against changing the property to commercial but encourages the applicant’s concept in some existing commercial area. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she agrees with the Commissioner’s remarks and the staff assessment. She said she would recommend denial. Commissioner Peilen said she is torn as the concept is lovely. She commented that the Design Guidelines are new and why go through that process only to Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 13 violate the guidelines. She spoke about commercial including many uses. She said she can’t support the request. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend denial of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and denial of an amendment to the Zoning Map. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion to deny passed on a vote of 7-0. C. Sherwin Williams Retail Store – Conditional Use Permit Location: 4911 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: TJL Development, LLC Case No.: 15-38-CUP Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The request for a conditional use permit is to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface area of approximately 78%. A CUP is required when the total impervious surface area of a development in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district exceeds 70% of the total lot area. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how the landscaping and fence would look in the back of the other building. She asked if the easement is granted can the applicant and the other building owner take a look at screening. Mr. Morrison said when discussing the easement it will be an opportunity to negotiate screening. Commissioner Carper asked about the current building on the lot. Mr. Morrison said the building is vacant and was Reddy Rents and has been for a very long time an antiquity store. Commissioner Carper asked about the three trees in the neighboring lot that are considered screening. He asked if the applicant would replace those trees if they were ever removed. Mr. Morrison stated that could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission desired. Jim Lavalle, TJL Development, LLC said the site plan was designed to meet the recommendations of the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. Guidelines. The Chair opened the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 14 Bill Quirk, 4907 Excelsior Blvd, said he is a co-owner of the adjacent building which is occupied. He said his wife runs a home goods store at that location. He said they do appreciate the new development. They are concerned about the Excelsior facing side of the building which has a 5 ft. setback from the sidewalk. He said the new development will impair the eastbound traffic view of his wife’s store which has been open for less than one year. Line of sight traffic is very important to the store. They’ve had a lot of positive feedback from residents about the store and he said he wants to stress the impact of window shopping to a small business. He spoke about a safety issue and the easement with a car cutting through behind the building because the back door has a two foot drop which would prohibit a vehicle from going back there. He said he recognizes the plan is consistent with the Design Guidelines. But it would likely have a detrimental effect on their small business. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tatalovich asked if there are other situations where the setback shielded the visibility of other businesses. Staff reviewed past experiences along Excelsior Blvd., specifically the Judith McGrann building (4615 Excelsior Blvd). This building had an addition constructed to the front setback, thereby shielding the building to the east. The City amended the sign ordinance shortly thereafter, to allow signs with a 5.0 foot setback in the C-1 and C-2 Commercial Districts instead of the previously allowed 10.0 feet. The 5.0 foot sign setback is consistent with the 5.0 foot front building setback. Commissioner Robertson said he supported the project until he heard about the shielding issue. Signage, though an expense for a small business, would help. He said the proposal is a huge improvement for the corner and he supports it completely. He said in the interim we have to make sure adjacent buildings don’t get hurt. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the intention of the easement is for longer term on what could happen on this block. He said the idea is that over time if blocks change that this is an opportunity to have fewer driveways and fewer interruptions for pedestrians on the sidewalk. The applicant has graciously been open to granting an easement, this is seen as a long term issue. Commissioner Peilen said it would be a great addition to the city but she doesn’t want it to come at the expense of another small business. She said she hopes the applicant and the adjacent property owner can work something out regarding visibility. She made a motion recommending approval of the request. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 15 Commissioner Carper seconded the motion with an amendment that the applicant will provide adequate screening along the entire barrier if the existing tree screening is removed. Commissioner Peilen accepted the amendment. The motion, as amended, passed on a vote of 7-0. D. Elmwood West – Preliminary/Final Plat with Variances Location: 9301 W. Franklin Avenue Applicant: Lake West Development Company Case No.: 15-26-S and 15-27-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The plat proposes to split one single family lot into three single family lots. One variance is requested to allow a 79.5 ft. lot width instead of the required 85 ft. minimum required lot width. The second variance is to allow the minimum lot width to occur for less than 1/3 of the lot depth. Approximately 5 feet of right-of- way dedication is proposed along Flag Ave. Mr. Morrison provided the staff analysis of the requested variances. He stated that staff recommends denial of the preliminary and final plat, and denial of the two variances. He presented the findings supporting denial. Commissioner Peilen asked for more details on proposed construction. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said there is no house plan for the site. The applicant has provided an envelope of where homes could be built. It was stated that the homes would be developed by one developer. The grading plan is designed for full walk-out basements. He said Planning Commission review is to determine if the lots themselves are of a size that is adequate to meet ordinances and also to provide single family homes. The applicant has demonstrated that the lots are large enough to provide single family home. The corner lot requires a wider lot because it has two frontages. John Fletcher, Lake West Development, said they are trying to balance the issues of the neighborhood, community, and property owner. He provided the Commission with a Compliance and Hardship Summary for Elmwood West Subdivision. He said that Lake West and and staff respectfully disagree on certain interpretations of zoning code for the variance requests. He reviewed Hardship #1 – Radii not Included in Lot Width, Hardship #2 – Adjacent Property Setback (41 Feet), and Hardship #3 – Right of Way Dedication and explained Lake West’s interpretation of code. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 16 Mr. Fletcher said the applicant appreciates the open dialogue of staff, neighborhood and Planning Commission. He said the applicant believes the property owner has a right to request a variance that is reasonable or represents a practical difficulty based on factual findings of actual hardship which have been presented. He said the applicant also reserves the right to request a reasonable accommodation that preserves the enjoyment of substantial property rights as owner and applicant. Commissioner Kramer asked Mr. Fletcher if he was the owner. Mr. Fletcher said he is not the owner and Lake West Development is a for hire developer. Commissioner Robertson said the applicant’s argument was creative but it dismissed where the ordinance measures the 1/3 depth. He stated there is no hardship. He said the city has consistently not subdivided properties where the variance would allow that to happen. He said the applicant is trying to over subdivide the lot. The Chair opened the public hearing. James Lockhart, 1821 Hillsboro, said he agrees with staff conclusions and with Commissioner Robertson’s comments. He said he and his wife bought their home 17 years ago specifically because of the large lots that are relatively unique to St. Louis Park. He said the neighborhood is a unique area that adds to the diversity of the city. He spoke about State Statute 462.357 Subd.6 which governs the granting of variances. Steve Feldman, 9401 W. Franklin, a 40-year resident, spoke about the character of the Crestview neighborhood which residents would like to maintain. He said the homes have ½ acre lots with 40-60 ft. between homes. The corner at Flag would be impacted by having a home at an angle. He said from Cedar Lake Rd. to Franklin the setbacks have a certain standard, except for the older homes at 14th and Flag. He spoke about the number of driveways differing from what the applicant presented. Mr. Feldman said the property currently has a fence to protect golf course lighting from coming into the yard. That would become a driveway in the proposal. He said his biggest concern regards safety. He said golf course guests sometimes drive faster than residents. He said by adding the home and pushing it out to the minimum setback the range of vision will be affected. Rick Lovelace, 9411 W. Franklin, said the neighborhood is strongly against the proposal. The houses would not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. He Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 17 said the owner bought the property a few months ago to turn it for a large profit. He said he didn’t think making less profit was an undue hardship. He spoke about setting a precedent with the variances. He discussed multiple sewer back-ups along the south side of Franklin Ave. and wondered if adding additional homes would increase that problem. James Poulter, 1631 Fairway Lane, Chair of Crestview Neighborhood Association and Steering Committee, said the association shares the same objections mentioned such as: precedent setting for ½ acre lots, Comprehensive Plan 2030 did not recommend redevelopment for the neighborhood, wetland damage, sewer problems/infrastructure issues costing residents thousands of dollars, entrance/exit point of golf course and safety, setback misalignment and safety, greenspace reduction and lack of a neighborhood park, and the excellent condition of the existing home/move-up housing and the Green Initiative of the city in the name of profit for a developer. Mr. Poulter said as an association, they are to a person 100% opposed to the development as a three home site. Vernice Deming, 1631 Independence Ave., said she has lived in her home since the 1972. She said the home at 9301 W. Franklin is very well built. She said it is distressing to have green initiatives and to tear down a beautiful, well-built house. The Chair acknowledged letters of opposition received from Edward and Shirley Christensen, 1830 Flag Ave.; Alfred Feldman, 9311 W. Franklin; John and Christine Stephansen, 9421 W. Franklin; Robert and Opal Young, 2044 Flag; Mary and Hugh Mattson, and the Crestview Neighborhood Steering Committee. The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said after listening to the comments she doesn’t believe even subdividing into two lots would be appropriate for the neighborhood. She said she would recommend denial of the request. Commissioner Carper said he agreed with the staff recommendation. He added that both Lake Forest neighborhood and Crestview neighborhood have the largest lots in the city and variances for subdivisions would be setting precedent. Commissioner Tatalovich said he agreed with commissioners. He said he did not agree with the applicant’s definition of hardship. He said he would recommend denial. Commissioner Robertson said it was an interesting discussion on codes and hardships but hardships cannot be the making of the applicant. All the hardships quoted were basically the making of the developer. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission September 16, 2015 Page 18 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat with variances. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Sr. Office Assistant Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Agenda Item #3A 3A. Consideration of a resolution stating that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Motion: Motion to adopt the resolution finding the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the proposed 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park. REQUEST: Requested is a recommendation of approval of the resolution finding that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plans for the proposed 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. The proposed plans to construct a mixed-use redevelopment at 4900 and 4760 Excelsior Blvd are in conformance with the land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site which is Mixed-Use. BACKGROUND: Oppidan Investment Company (“Developer”) proposes to assemble and redevelop the former Bally Total Fitness block bound by Excelsior Blvd, Quentin Ave S, Princeton Ave S, and Park Commons Dr. The 1.6-acre redevelopment site consists of two parcels: the former Bally Total Fitness property located at 4900 Excelsior Blvd. and the vacant EDA property located at 4760 Excelsior Blvd (“subject site”). Subject redevelopment site for: 4900 Excelsior Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 2 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Proposed Project The Developer plans to raze the vacant Bally building and parking structure and replace them with a mixed-use (residential and retail) development called 4900 Excelsior. The proposed 5 and partial 6-story-building would consist of 176 residential units (of which 10% would be designated for households earning 60% of area median income) and 28,228 square feet of commercial space to be leased to a specialty grocer. Also included would be structured underground and street parking. Proposed 4900 Excelsior project - perspective from Excelsior & Quentin Proposed 4900 Excelsior project - perspective from Excelsior & Princeton Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 3 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Developer’s Request for Public Financing Assistance There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the subject site. These include: environmental investigation and reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition, site preparation, shoring, underground stormwater retention, and structured underground parking. Altogether, these costs exceed $7.1 million and prevent the proposed project from achieving financial feasibility. Consequently Oppidan applied to the EDA for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the 4900 Excelsior project to proceed. Tax increment financing uses the increased future property taxes generated by a new development to finance certain qualified development costs incurred by that project for a limited period of time. Level and Type of Financial Assistance Oppidan’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (ROR) related to 4900 Excelsior were reviewed by staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant). The estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of redevelopment. It was also concluded, given the extraordinary costs outlined above, that but for financial assistance from the EDA the proposed project would not attain the average cash-on- cash (COC) return of approximately ten (10) percent necessary for it to obtain financing. In order for the proposed project to achieve the required cash-on-cash (COC) return it was determined that $2,600,000 in tax increment would be necessary. That level of assistance would overcome enough of the extraordinary site costs described above such that it allows the project to achieve a rate of return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the project to become financially feasible. The proposed amount of TIF assistance is consistent with other redevelopments the EDA has assisted previously. As a reminder, the tax increment would be generated by the project itself and would only be provided once construction had been completed and the Developer supplies statements verifying that it had incurred the specified qualified costs. Statutorily, the proposed tax increment assistance could only be applied toward the project’s extraordinary expenses. 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 on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy. Upon completion, the proposed project would generate the proposed $2.6 million in approximately 7 years. Providing tax increment financing assistance to the proposed redevelopment makes it possible to construct a high quality project consistent with Livable Communities design principles and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project also brings the subject properties to optimal market value and creates new employment opportunities as well as provides the community with expanded housing choices and additional affordable housing units. The EDA’s financial participation in the proposed project would leverage approximately $48 million in new investment. The ratio of private to public investment in the project is $18 to $1. Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 4 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Estimated Increase in Property Value and Employment The total combined taxable market value of the subject properties is currently under $2.7 million. The total taxable market value of 4900 Excelsior upon construction completion is estimated at $38.4 million. 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 4900 Excelsior would generate approximately $582,450 annually in gross tax increment. The City, County and School District would continue to receive the property taxes collected on the subject site’s base value. The project is estimated to generate a total of $856,924 in annual property taxes. Once the TIF Note is retired the additional property taxes generated by the project would accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions. Upon termination of the TIF Note, it is estimated that the City’s portion of the project’s total property taxes will be approximately $582,453 annually. The proposed project is expected to create to create 85 new FTE employment positions in the city. TIF Application Review The EDA/City Council reviewed Oppidan’s TIF Application for the proposed 4900 Excelsior project at the June 8th Study Session as well as the August 17th Special Study Session where it received favorable support. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment TIF District and to begin drafting a formal redevelopment contract with Oppidan. Proposed TIF District The subject site is within the City’s Redevelopment Project Area which is the portion of the city where the EDA may establish TIF districts. The Bally block lies within the current Park Commons TIF District. The period for amending the TIF Plan budget for this district to include Oppidan’s proposed project has expired. Thus, the subject properties need to be removed from the existing Park Commons TIF district and a new 25-year Redevelopment TIF District called 4900 Excelsior is proposed to be established. As shown in the attached TIF District map, the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District consists of two parcels: 4900 and 4760 Excelsior Blvd. The proposed TIF district is further detailed in the attached TIF Plan. The proposed 4900 Excelsior 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: Bally Block TIF District St. Louis Park, Minnesota dated August 8, 2014. Previous and Pending TIF District Approvals At its October 5th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of November 16, 2015 for consideration of the establishment of the proposed 4900 Excelsior Redevelopment TIF District. The EDA will consider the approval of the purchase & redevelopment contract on that same date. Is the proposed TIF district in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan? The land use designation within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is Mixed-Use (see attachment) and the current zoning map contemplates mixed-use and high-density Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 5 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 residential development on the subject site. The intent of the “Mixed Use” land use designation and the City’s Livable Community design principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings, typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed- income housing, a mix of housing types on the same block, and higher density development. The subject site is suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family housing and meets many of the objectives for the Park Commons redevelopment area. More specifically the proposed project is consistent with the following goal and policies listed in the Land Use section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Goal #1 Continue to enhance the Park Commons area as St. Louis Park’s primary “town center.” Policy 1-A: Promote and support the redevelopment of the remaining designated redevelopment sites in the Park Commons area with mixed-use buildings to strengthen the area’s function as the “town center”. Policy 1-B: Ensure that future redevelopment provides similar building forms and densities that will complement the character of the “town center”. Policy 1-C: Require that future redevelopment is designed with buildings that are oriented to the public streets and spaces that are the heart of the “town center”. The subject site has convenient access to good bus service, Wolfe Park, and other services and businesses along Excelsior Blvd, and is within biking distance of the SWLRT regional trail and future LRT Beltline and Wooddale stations. Oppidan’s proposed project is a compact, mixed- use, mixed-income building that promotes efficient use of the land, existing infrastructure, and existing roadway system. It also incorporates underground parking, new sidewalks, and bicycle facilities making the redevelopment walkable, bikable, and transit oriented. Thus, the proposed 4900 Excelsior project as specified in the attached TIF Plan conforms to the Mixed-Use land use designation within the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the subject site. The Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act requires planning commissions to determine if a proposed TIF district is in conformance with its city’s Comprehensive Plan. In light of the information presented above, the Planning Commission is being asked to find that the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution finding that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. Attachments: • Resolution of Approval • 4900 Excelsior TIF District Map • Land Use Map • Tax Increment Financing Plan for 4900 Excelsior TIF District Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 6 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 7 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE 4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, AND THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO 4900 APARTMENTS LLC 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 (the “TIF Plan,” and collectively with the Redevelopment Plan Modification, the “Plans”) for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”), and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") for review, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and WHEREAS, the EDA intends to convey certain property within the proposed TIF District (the “Property”) to 4900 Apartments LLC (the “Redeveloper”) for the construction by the Redeveloper of a mixed -use housing and retail facility on the Property, as provided in the Plans; 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 Planning Commission, such acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans 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; and has reviewed the proposed sale of the Property in connection with the Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission, that the sale of the Property in connection with the Plans is consistent with the City’s comprehensive municipal plan. Agenda Item No 3A – 4900 Excelsior TIF District Plan – Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Page 8 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Adopted by the St. Louis Park Planning Commission October 21, 2015 ATTEST: Richard Person, Chair Sean Walther Planning and Zoning Supervisor 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land use Designation 4900 4760 4760 Excelsior Blvd PID: 0702824210258 4900 Excelsior Blvd PID: 0702824210002 EXCEL SI O R WOLFE VALLAC H E R PARK C O M M O N S NATCHEZQUENTINGRANDPRINCETON OTTAWA39THWOLFEEXCEL SI O R PRINCETON ´ 4900 Excelsior TIF District Legend Parcels Proposed TIF Dist Roads October 13, 2015 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 280 0 280140 Feet As of October 14, 2015 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 4900 Excelsior 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: November 16, 2015 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 4900 Excelsior 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 ...................... 2-5 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-7 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-8 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-11 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11 Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-13 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-14 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-15 Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-16 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 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior 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 Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior 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 4900 Excelsior 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 two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of 176 apartments (of which 10% will be affordable to persons at or below 60% of the AMI) and a 28,000 square foot grocer in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA intends to enter into an agreement with 4900 Apartments LLC (Oppidan) as the developer and expects development to commence in late 2015. 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 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 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 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. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable 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 two 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 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 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 2017, 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 2042, 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 2015 for taxes payable 2016. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2017) 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 2016, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. 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 2017. 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 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,067,418 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $37,884 Fiscal Disparities Contribution $88,263 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $941,271 Original Local Tax Rate 1.30048 Pay 2015 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,224,104 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 $78,765. 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 two building permits have been issued in the past 18 months, but they do not increase the original tax capacity. Please see Appendix H for the building permits that were issued. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note 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 $21,611,861 Interest $2,161,139 TOTAL $23,773,000 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 $14,669,663. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development consisting of 176 apartments (of which 10% will be affordable to persons at or below 60% of the AMI) and a 28,000 square foot grocer. 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 $3,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $2,000,000 Utilities $1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $6,508,567 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,161,096 PROJECT COST TOTAL $14,669,663 Interest $9,103,337 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $23,773,000 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 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 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 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 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; St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2014/Pay 2015 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,354,654,515 941,271 0.0695% City of St. Louis Park 51,886,847 941,271 1.8141% St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 49,130,597 941,271 1.9159% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Pay 2015 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Hennepin County 0.463980 35.68% 941,271 436,731 City of St. Louis Park 0.494330 38.01% 941,271 465,298 St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.226940 17.45% 941,271 213,612 Other 0.115230 8.86%941,271 108,463 Total 1.300480 100.00%1,224,104 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2015 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2015 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 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 $21,611,861; (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. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City tracks all calls for service by neighborhood and property type. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff. Vacant buildings, like the former Bally Fitness building, often become an attractive nuisance and are conducive to nefarious activity which can become a blighting influence within the neighborhood. Removal of this building as a result of the mixed-use project will alleviate these concerns. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. Continued development may generate additional calls for service. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The fee for each SAC is $2,485 and $750 for each WAC. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 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 $3,771,270; (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 $7,711,112; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: • A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing. Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 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 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 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 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 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 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 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 November 2019 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 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 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 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 District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 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. 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 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-15 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. Tax increments derived from 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 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. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 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. Appendix A-1 Appendix A Project Description The EDA will be entering into a redevelopment contract with 4900 Apartments LLC (Oppidan) to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Bally’s Fitness Center and a vacant lot owned by the EDA into a mixed-use development consisting of 176 apartments and a 28,000 square foot grocer. Pursuant to the City’s new inclusionary housing policy, the developer must provide 18 or 10% of the units (whichever is higher) to be affordable to persons at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) or 8% of the units affordable at 50% of the AMI. The city will be providing assistance in the form of a pay-as-you-go TIF note. Appendix B-1 Appendix B Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District ´ 4900 Excelsior TIF District Legend Parcels Proposed TIF Distict Redevelopment Area October 13, 2015 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 3,400 0 3,4001,700 Feet SubjectArea 4900 4760 4760 Excelsior Blvd PID: 0702824210258 4900 Excelsior Blvd PID: 0702824210002 EXCEL SI O R WOLFE VALLAC H E R PARK C O M M O N S NATCHEZQUENTINGRANDPRINCETON OTTAWA39THWOLFEEXCEL SI O R PRINCETON ´ 4900 Excelsior TIF District Legend Parcels Proposed TIF Dist Roads October 13, 2015 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department 280 0 280140 Feet Appendix C-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 07-028-24-21-0002*4900 Excelsior Blvd.Fitness International LLC 07-028-24-21-0258*4760 Excelsior Blvd.EDA *These parcels are currently in the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District and will be decertified prior to certification of the District. Appendix D-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District 10/13/2015Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Bally's Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2015Commercial 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-16Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%First Period Ending1-Feb-17Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2016First $100,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2017 Over $100,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2042First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,0001.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio35.0050% Pay 2015 First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate161.6250% Pay 2015Over $500,0001.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 130.048% Pay 2015 Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 130.048% Pay 2015 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 50.8400% Pay 2015Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.23783% Pay 2015 Building Total PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandMarket Market Of Value Used Original OriginalTaxOriginalAfterConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value ValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.10702824210002 Ballys 4900 Ex. Blvd 1,215,000 1,189,000 2,404,00020% 480,800 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.8,866 C/I Pref.8,866 110702824210002 Ballys 4900 Ex. Blvd 1,215,000 1,189,000 2,404,00080% 1,923,200 Pay 2016 C/I Pref.37,714 Rental24,040 120702824210258 EDA4760 Ex. Blvd 355,5800 355,58020%71,116 Pay 2016 Exempt- C/I1,422 120702824210258 EDA4760 Ex. Blvd 355,5800 355,58080% 284,464 Pay 2016 Exempt- Rental3,556 13,141,160 2,378,000 5,519,1602,759,580 46,58037,884Note:1. Base values for parcel #1 are for pay 2016 based upon review of County website on 4-28-15. 2. Base value for parcel #2 is based upon $20 sq/ft per City Assessor.Area/ 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\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xls 10/13/2015Base Value Assumptions - Page 23. Located in SD #283 and WS #3Bally's Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value TotalMarketTaxProject Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2015201620172018 PayableApartment 180,000180,000 176 31,680,000 Rental396,0002,250 15%100%100%100%2018Grocery230230 28,228 6,492,440 C/I Pref. 129,0995 15%100%100%100%2018TOTAL38,172,440525,099 Subtotal Residential176 31,680,000396,000 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.28,228 6,492,440129,099 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from City Assessor.Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitApartment 396,0000396,000 514,9900075,345 590,335 3,354.17Grocery129,099 45,191 83,908 109,120 73,040 65,63415,441 263,2359.33TOTAL 525,099 45,191 479,908 624,110 73,040 65,63490,786 853,570Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes853,570Current Market Value - Est.2,759,580less State-wide Taxes(65,634)New Market Value - Est.38,172,440less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(73,040) Difference35,412,860less Market Value Taxes(90,786)Present Value of Tax Increment12,071,960less Base Value Taxes(44,584) Difference23,340,900Annual Gross TIF 579,526Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:23,340,900 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\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xls 10/13/2015Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Bally's Redevelopment - No InflationCity of St. Louis Park176 Apartments and 28,000 sq/ft GrocerTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%5% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/17100% 78,765 (37,884) (3,177) 37,703 130.048% 49,033 24,516 (88) (1,221) 23,207 22,306 0.5 2017 08/01/17100% 78,765 (37,884) (3,177) 37,703 130.048% 49,033 24,516 (88) (1,221) 23,207 44,174 1 2017 02/01/18100% 525,099 (37,884) (41,590) 445,625 130.048% 579,526 289,763 (1,043) (14,436) 274,284 297,570 1.5 2018 08/01/18100% 525,099 (37,884) (41,590) 445,625 130.048% 579,526 289,763 (1,043) (14,436) 274,284 545,997 2 2018 02/01/19100% 540,852 (37,884) (42,945) 460,022 130.048% 598,250 299,125 (1,077) (14,902) 283,146 797,423 2.5 2019 08/01/19100% 540,852 (37,884) (42,945) 460,022 130.048% 598,250 299,125 (1,077) (14,902) 283,146 1,043,918 3 2019 02/01/20100% 557,077 (37,884) (44,342) 474,851 130.048% 617,535 308,767 (1,112) (15,383) 292,273 1,293,370 3.5 2020 08/01/20100% 557,077 (37,884) (44,342) 474,851 130.048% 617,535 308,767 (1,112) (15,383) 292,273 1,537,931 4 2020 02/01/21100% 573,790 (37,884) (45,780) 490,125 130.048% 637,398 318,699 (1,147) (15,878) 301,674 1,785,409 4.5 2021 08/01/21100% 573,790 (37,884) (45,780) 490,125 130.048% 637,398 318,699 (1,147) (15,878) 301,674 2,028,035 5 2021 02/01/22100% 591,003 (37,884) (47,261) 505,858 130.048% 657,858 328,929 (1,184) (16,387) 311,358 2,273,538 5.5 2022 08/01/22100% 591,003 (37,884) (47,261) 505,858 130.048% 657,858 328,929 (1,184) (16,387) 311,358 2,514,227 6 2022 02/01/23100% 608,733 (37,884) (48,787) 522,062 130.048% 678,931 339,466 (1,222) (16,912) 321,331 2,757,756 6.5 2023 08/01/23100% 608,733 (37,884) (48,787) 522,062 130.048% 678,931 339,466 (1,222) (16,912) 321,331 2,996,510 7 2023 02/01/24100% 626,995 (37,884) (50,359) 538,752 130.048% 700,637 350,318 (1,261) (17,453) 331,604 3,238,066 7.5 2024 08/01/24100% 626,995 (37,884) (50,359) 538,752 130.048% 700,637 350,318 (1,261) (17,453) 331,604 3,474,885 8 2024 02/01/25100% 645,805 (37,884) (51,978) 555,943 130.048% 722,993 361,497 (1,301) (18,010) 342,185 3,714,470 8.5 2025 08/01/25100% 645,805 (37,884) (51,978) 555,943 130.048% 722,993 361,497 (1,301) (18,010) 342,185 3,949,356 9 2025 02/01/26100% 665,179 (37,884) (53,645) 573,650 130.048% 746,020 373,010 (1,343) (18,583) 353,084 4,186,972 9.5 2026 08/01/26100% 665,179 (37,884) (53,645) 573,650 130.048% 746,020 373,010 (1,343) (18,583) 353,084 4,419,928 10 2026 02/01/27100% 685,135 (37,884) (55,363) 591,888 130.048% 769,739 384,869 (1,386) (19,174) 364,310 4,655,578 10.5 2027 08/01/27100% 685,135 (37,884) (55,363) 591,888 130.048% 769,739 384,869 (1,386) (19,174) 364,310 4,886,607 11 2027 02/01/28100% 705,689 (37,884) (57,132) 610,673 130.048% 794,168 397,084 (1,430) (19,783) 375,872 5,120,294 11.5 2028 08/01/28100% 705,689 (37,884) (57,132) 610,673 130.048% 794,168 397,084 (1,430) (19,783) 375,872 5,349,400 12 2028 02/01/29100% 726,860 (37,884) (58,954) 630,022 130.048% 819,331 409,665 (1,475) (20,410) 387,781 5,581,130 12.5 2029 08/01/29100% 726,860 (37,884) (58,954) 630,022 130.048% 819,331 409,665 (1,475) (20,410) 387,781 5,808,316 13 2029 02/01/30100% 748,665 (37,884) (60,830) 649,951 130.048% 845,248 422,624 (1,521) (21,055) 400,048 6,038,093 13.5 2030 08/01/30100% 748,665 (37,884) (60,830) 649,951 130.048% 845,248 422,624 (1,521) (21,055) 400,048 6,263,365 14 2030 02/01/31100% 771,125 (37,884) (62,763) 670,478 130.048% 871,943 435,972 (1,569) (21,720) 412,682 6,491,195 14.5 2031 08/01/31100% 771,125 (37,884) (62,763) 670,478 130.048% 871,943 435,972 (1,569) (21,720) 412,682 6,714,557 15 2031 02/01/32100% 794,259 (37,884) (64,754) 691,621 130.048% 899,439 449,720 (1,619) (22,405) 425,696 6,940,445 15.5 2032 08/01/32100% 794,259 (37,884) (64,754) 691,621 130.048% 899,439 449,720 (1,619) (22,405) 425,696 7,161,905 16 2032 02/01/33100% 818,087 (37,884) (66,805) 713,398 130.048% 927,760 463,880 (1,670) (23,110) 439,099 7,385,858 16.5 2033 08/01/33100% 818,087 (37,884) (66,805) 713,398 130.048% 927,760 463,880 (1,670) (23,110) 439,099 7,605,419 17 2033 02/01/34100% 842,629 (37,884) (68,917) 735,828 130.048% 956,930 478,465 (1,722) (23,837) 452,905 7,827,444 17.5 2034 08/01/34100% 842,629 (37,884) (68,917) 735,828 130.048% 956,930 478,465 (1,722) (23,837) 452,905 8,045,115 18 2034 02/01/35100% 867,908 (37,884) (71,092) 758,932 130.048% 986,976 493,488 (1,777) (24,586) 467,126 8,265,219 18.5 2035 08/01/35100% 867,908 (37,884) (71,092) 758,932 130.048% 986,976 493,488 (1,777) (24,586) 467,126 8,481,007 19 2035 02/01/36100% 893,946 (37,884) (73,333) 782,728 130.048% 1,017,922 508,961 (1,832) (25,356) 481,772 8,699,197 19.5 2036 08/01/36100% 893,946 (37,884) (73,333) 782,728 130.048% 1,017,922 508,961 (1,832) (25,356) 481,772 8,913,109 20 2036 02/01/37100% 920,764 (37,884) (75,641) 807,238 130.048% 1,049,797 524,899 (1,890) (26,150) 496,859 9,129,394 20.5 2037 08/01/37100% 920,764 (37,884) (75,641) 807,238 130.048% 1,049,797 524,899 (1,890) (26,150) 496,859 9,341,437 21 2037 02/01/38100% 948,387 (37,884) (78,019) 832,484 130.048% 1,082,629 541,314 (1,949) (26,968) 512,397 9,555,825 21.5 2038 08/01/38100% 948,387 (37,884) (78,019) 832,484 130.048% 1,082,629 541,314 (1,949) (26,968) 512,397 9,766,009 22 2038 02/01/39100% 976,838 (37,884) (80,467) 858,487 130.048% 1,116,445 558,223 (2,010) (27,811) 528,402 9,978,508 22.5 2039 08/01/39100% 976,838 (37,884) (80,467) 858,487 130.048% 1,116,445 558,223 (2,010) (27,811) 528,402 10,186,840 23 2039 02/01/40100% 1,006,144 (37,884) (82,989) 885,270 130.048% 1,151,276 575,638 (2,072) (28,678) 544,888 10,397,459 23.5 2040 08/01/40100% 1,006,144 (37,884) (82,989) 885,270 130.048% 1,151,276 575,638 (2,072) (28,678) 544,888 10,603,949 24 2040 02/01/41100% 1,036,328 (37,884) (85,587) 912,857 130.048% 1,187,152 593,576 (2,137) (29,572) 561,867 10,812,699 24.5 2041 08/01/41100% 1,036,328 (37,884) (85,587) 912,857 130.048% 1,187,152 593,576 (2,137) (29,572) 561,867 11,017,355 25 2041 02/01/42100% 1,067,418 (37,884) (88,263) 941,271 130.048% 1,224,104 612,052 (2,203) (30,492) 579,356 11,224,243 25.5 2042 08/01/42100% 1,067,418 (37,884) (88,263) 941,271 130.048% 1,224,104 612,052 (2,203) (30,492) 579,356 11,427,075 26 2042 02/01/43 Total21,689,042 (78,081) (1,080,548) 20,530,413 Present Value From 08/01/2016 Present Value Rate 4.00%12,071,960 (43,459) (601,425) 11,427,075 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\4900 Excelsior\TIF Run 9-18-15 - FINAL For TIF Plan.xls Appendix E-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Appendix F-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District REPORT OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS FOR DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Bally Block TIF District St. Louis Park, Minnesota August 8, 2014 Prepared For The City of St. Louis Park Prepared by LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 LHB Project No. 140199 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 2 Scope of Work....................................................................................................................... 2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 3 PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS .................. 3 A. Coverage Test ................................................................................................................. 3 B. Condition of Buildings Test ......................................................................................... 4 PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ................................................................................................. 5 PART 4 – FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Coverage Test ................................................................................................................. 5 B. Condition of Building Test ........................................................................................... 6 1. Building Inspection ......................................................................................... 6 2. Replacement Cost ............................................................................................ 6 3. Code Deficiencies ............................................................................................ 7 4. System Condition Deficiencies ...................................................................... 7 C. Distribution of substandard structures ....................................................................... 8 PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS ............................................................................................................. 9 APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Bally Block TIF District 1 LHB Project No. 140199 PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of St. Louis Park to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the City. The proposed TIF District is located on one city block bounded by Excelsior Boulevard, Quentin Avenue, Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue South (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether 1 building on 2 parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of two (2) parcels with one (1) structure. One (1) building was inspected on April 15, 2014. Building code and Condition Deficiency reports for the buildings that were inspected are located in Appendix B. Bally Block TIF District 2 LHB Project No. 140199 CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District because: • The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 74.6 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. • 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent requirement. • The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail. PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states: Interior Inspection “The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property...” Exterior Inspection and Other Means “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.” Documentation “Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).” Qualification Requirements Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: A. Coverage Test …“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots” The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a Bally Block TIF District 3 LHB Project No. 140199 parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots.” B. Condition of Buildings Test …“and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;” 1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), which states: “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.” a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. 2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: “A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable 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.” “Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.” LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: • The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction standards are required by law. • The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional list of “Optional Enforcement” chapters. • The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Bally Block TIF District 4 LHB Project No. 140199 confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota. • In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code. • Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures. PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED LHB was able to inspect the one existing building during the day of April 15, 2014. PART 4 – FINDINGS A. Coverage Test 1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. 2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. 3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met. Finding: The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 74.6 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1). Bally Block TIF District 5 LHB Project No. 140199 Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, Paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures B. Condition of Building Test 1. Building Inspection The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk- thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non-code deficiencies in the building. 2. Replacement Cost The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for 2014. Bally Block TIF District 6 LHB Project No. 140199 A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit. Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated in Appendix A. 3. Code Deficiencies The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District. The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes. After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works 2014; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold. Finding: One (1) out of one (1) building (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). A complete Building Code and Condition Deficiency report for the building in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report. 4. System Condition Deficiencies If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally substandard” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Bally Block TIF District 7 LHB Project No. 140199 Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above. System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors. The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that component’s deficiencies. After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.” Finding: In our professional opinion, one (1) out of one (1) buildings (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, because of 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. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1). C. Distribution of substandard structures Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3). Bally Block TIF District 8 LHB Project No. 140199 Finding: The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District. Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings Shaded area depicts parcels with substandard buildings PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has twenty-four years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development. Michael has served on over 35 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President, Chair of a Metropolitan Planning organization, and most recently, Chair of the Bally Block TIF District 9 LHB Project No. 140199 Bally Block TIF District 10 LHB Project No. 140199 Planning Commission in Edina, Minnesota. He was one of four architects in the country to receive the National "Young Architects Citation" from the American Institute of Architects in 1997. Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. Ben Trousdale, AIA – Inspector Ben is a project architect in LHB’s Minneapolis office with 20 years of experience working on a variety of multi-family housing and commercial projects. He has extensive skills in creating quality construction documents that convey a building’s fundamentals and unique design details. His responsibilities include project management, code analysis, and overseeing document production. Ben is a licensed architect in Minnesota and is involved with AIA activities including Search for Shelter charrettes. M:\14Proj\140199\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\Bally Block TIF Report.doc APPENDICES APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photograph APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet 08/06/2014Bally Block TIF Analysis ‐ St. Louis ParkSUMMARY SPREADSHEETTIF Map No.PID # Owner/Business Property AddressImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandard107‐028‐24‐21‐0002 Fitness International LLC 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Improved Interior/Exterior52,094 42,068 80.8% 52,094 1 $4,454,532 $668,180 $808,583 1 1207‐028‐24‐21‐0258St Louis Park Econ Dev Auth4760 Excelsior BoulevardVacantExterior17,7792,08611.7%00$0$0$000TOTALS 69,873 52,094 1 11 74.6% 100.0%M:\14Proj\140199\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\[St. Louis Park Bally Block TIF Summary Spreadsheet.xls]Property Info100.0%Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: LHB Project No. 140199Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports BALLY BLOCK REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS August 8, 2014 Map No. & Address: Map No. 1 – 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): 15 April 2014, 10:30am Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $4,454,532.00 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 808,583.20 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 18.2 % A. Defects in Structural Elements - Cracks in exterior walls may indicate settlement in the building structure. B. Combination of Deficiencies 1. Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Remove and replace existing toilet rooms. b. Add elevator with the following: i Elevator Pit and footings ii 12” CMU shaft walls iii Elevator equipment and equipment room iv 100amp 3 phase power v safety switch vi fire alarm connections vii emergency phone connection c. Stainless steel removable ramp for pool and spa. 2. Light and Ventilation a. Reinstall Toilet Room Ventilation System. b. Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air. c. Ventilation ducts on roof are rusted and need replacement. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress. b. Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes). b. Move conflicting toilet partition and water closet in Men’s locker room. c. Replace water damaged and cracked acoustical ceiling tile. Install ceiling tile where none exists. d. Replace warped fluorescent light covers at ceiling. e. Replace worn carpeting in corridors. f. Patch and repaint walls g. Replace worn rubber trim at floor level. h. Replace warped and cracked wood gym flooring. i. Rubber flooring in fitness area is worn and damaged. Requires replacement. j. Baseboard missing in fitness area. k. Patch empty conduit drill holes in drywall in corridor and remove electrical conduit not in use. l. Rust forming on metal ceilings. m. Uneven rubber flooring transition at top of stair. n. Evidence of water damage on flooring. o. Shower room tiles exhibit signs of mold and mildew. p. Cracked tiles at pool surround. q. Tiles at spa exhibit signs of mildew. r. Cracked floor tiles at building entry. 5. Exterior Construction a. Landings not at same level on both sides of egress door. b. Install new stoop at 10 locations. c. Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage. d. Standing water on roof due to insufficient drainage. e. Install overflow drainage system. f. Cracks in roof sealant. g. Aging wood enclosure surrounding HVAC unit on roof. h. Moss growth on roof. i. Exterior wall discolored from previous signage. j. Exterior wall exhibits extensive cracks. k. Side entry requires landscaping or concrete walkway. l. Exterior rubber seal at windows peeling away from mullion. m. Cracked window. Requires replacement. n. Uneven pavement at rear entry. o. Exterior wall shows signs of patching and needs repainting. p. Wood chips covering exterior window sill. q. Exterior metal stair rusted at parking structure. Description of Code Deficiencies - Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex. - Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms with compliant number of accessories and fixtures. - Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not provided throughout building. MN 1341.0405, Item E. - MN 1341.0488: Provide handicap access to pool and spa. - MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2: Provide adequate access to shower unit at Men’s and Women’s locker rooms. - MN 1341.0442 - Provide adequate maneuvering space at Men's and Women's locker room doors. - Move conflicting toilet partition and water closet in Men’s locker room. - Landings not at same level both sides of egress door. - Install new stoop at 10 locations. - Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress. - Stair treads exceeds min. run of 11" and stair riser greater than max. 7". - Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3. - Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage. - Install overflow drainage system. - Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air. Overview of Deficiencies - This building is a two story, commercial building in generally poor condition. According to property records, it was built in 1983. - In total, the defects and deficiencies in this building are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Bally Block St Louis Park 4900 Excelsior Boulevard , St Louis Park , MN Building Type:Health Club with Concrete Block / Steel Frame Location:MINNEAPOLIS, MN Story Count:2 Story Height (L.F.):12 Floor Area (S.F.):24,685 Labor Type:STD Basement Included:Yes Data Release:Year 2014 Quarter 1 Cost Per Square Foot:$180.46 Building Cost:$4,454,532 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost 8.81% $15.89 $392,245 A1010 Standard Foundations $3.91 $96,518 A1030 Slab on Grade $3.50 $86,398 A2010 Basement Excavation $2.69 $66,403 A2020 Basement Walls $5.79 $142,926 26.17% $47.22 $1,165,626 B1010 Floor Construction $25.04 $618,112 B1020 Roof Construction $5.49 $135,521 B2010 Exterior Walls $8.95 $220,931 B2020 Exterior Windows $2.69 $66,403 B2030 Exterior Doors $1.17 $28,881 B3010 Roof Coverings $3.80 $93,803 B3020 Roof Openings $0.08 $1,975 19.41% $35.03 $864,716 C1010 Partitions $6.58 $162,427 Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 200K, soil bearing capacity 6 Estimate Name: Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. A Substructure Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 Windows, aluminum, picture unit, insulated glass, 3'‐4" x 5'‐0" Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF, B Shell Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column, Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and Roof, steel joists, joist girder, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30' Roof, steel joists, joist girder, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30' Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 Windows, aluminum, awning type, standard glass, 3'‐0" x 4'‐0", 3 lite Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, black finish, double door, Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick Skylight, plastic domes, insululated curbs, nominal size to 10 SF, single Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'‐6" x 3'‐0", galvanized C Interiors Bally Block TIF District LHB Project No. 140199 1 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002 C1020 Interior Doors $2.25 $55,541 C1030 Fittings $3.41 $84,176 C2010 Stair Construction $5.29 $130,584 C3010 Wall Finishes $1.40 $34,559 C3020 Floor Finishes $12.22 $301,651 C3030 Ceiling Finishes $3.88 $95,778 36.52% $65.91 $1,626,988 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $3.98 $98,246 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $6.42 $158,478 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $1.42 $35,053 D2040 Rain Water Drainage $0.73 $18,020 D3050 Terminal & Package Units $32.25 $796,091 D4010 Sprinklers $3.80 $93,803 D4020 Standpipes $0.38 $9,380 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $2.93 $72,327 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $11.72 $289,308 D5030 Communications and Security $2.22 $54,801 Hydraulic passenger elevator, 3,500 lb, 3 floors, 12 story height 1 car group, 125 FPM Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, 1/4" sound deadening Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 6" thick, no finish Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 1/2" fire rated gypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel Stairs, steel, cement filled metal pan & picket rail, 16 risers, with landing Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz Tile, ceramic natural clay Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar & D Services Water closet, vitreous china, tank type, floor mount, 1 piece Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, each additional floor, Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 19" x 16" oval Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 25" x 22" single bowl Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" Bathtub, recessed, PE on CI, mat bottom, corner, 48" x 42" Shower, stall, baked enamel, terrazzo receptor, 36" square Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 600 MBH input, 576 Roof drain, DWV PVC, 4" diam, diam, 10' high Roof drain, DWV PVC, 4" diam, for each additional foot add Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, bowling alleys, 20,000 SF, 113.00 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 2.5 per 1000 SF, .3 watts per Wall switches, 1.0 per 1000 SF Miscellaneous power, to .5 watts Central air conditioning power, 4 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 0.8 watt per SF, 20 FC, 5 HID fixture, 20' above work plane, 3 watt/SF, type G, 151 FC, 3 fixtures Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit Bally Block TIF District LHB Project No. 140199 2 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002 D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.06 $1,481 0.00% $0.00 $0 E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0 0.00% $0.00 $0 0.00% $0.00 $0 100% $164.05 $4,049,574 10.00% $16.41 $404,957 0.00% $0.00 $0 0.00% $0.00 $0 $180.46 $4,454,532 Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) Architectural Fees User Fees Total Building Cost Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, E Equipment & Furnishings F Special Construction G Building Sitework SubTotal Bally Block TIF District LHB Project No. 140199 3 of 3 Parcel #07‐028‐24‐21‐0002 Bally Block TIF District LHB Project No. 140199 Page 1 of 2 Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002 Bally Block Proposed TIF District Project No. 140199 4900 Excelsior Blvd Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002 Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Handicap Items Replace toilets to provide handicap access for each sex Build (2) new accessible toilet rooms W/ compliant number of accessories and fixtures Remove existing toilet rooms 2,275.00$ Lump 1 2,275.00$ 2 water closets 3,250.00$ each 2 6,500.00$ 2 lavs 2,275.00$ each 2 4,550.00$ 1 Urinal 2,275.00$ each 1 2,275.00$ 2 sets of grab bars 520.00$ each 2 1,040.00$ 2 sets toilet room accessories 650.00$ each 2 1,300.00$ Interior room reconstruction (doors, partitions, finishes)80.00$ SF 120 9,600.00$ Reinstall toilet Room Ventilation System 650.00$ each 2 1,300.00$ Interior configuration does not provide for accessible route. Interior handicap access route not provided throughout building. MN 1341.0405, Item E Add Elevator Elevator Pit and footings 8,000.00$ Lump 1 8,000.00$ 12" CMU Elevator Shaft walls 13.00$ SF 1,216 15,808.00$ Elevator Equipment (3 stop)44,575.00$ Lump 1 44,575.00$ Elevator Equipment Room (Assume 64 SF)30.00$ SF 64 1,920.00$ Power 100 amp 3 phase Safety Switch 520.00$ Lump 1 520.00$ Circuit Breaker 795.00$ Lump 1 795.00$ Motor Starter 450.00$ Lump 1 450.00$ Wire and Conduit Feeder (150 feet assumed)31.00$ LF 150 4,650.00$ Fire Alarm Connections 1,000.00$ lump 1 1,000.00$ Emergency Phone Connection 12.00$ LF 150 1,800.00$ MN 1341.0488 Provide handicap access to pool and spa Stainless steel removable ramp 10,550.00$ Each 2.00 21,100.00$ MN 1341.0458 Subpart 2 - Provide adequate access to shower unit at Men's and Women's locker rooms Install new shower enclosure in locker area Sawcut floor for new drain and waste.65.00$ HR 12.00 780.00$ Provide piping for hot and cold water 65.00$ HR 24.00 1,560.00$ Provide 8" CMU for wall enclosure at 2 sides of shower unit 12.00$ SF 96.00 1,152.00$ Furnish install new shower 36" x 36" enclosure with seat and bars 670.00$ Each 2.00 1,340.00$ Shower valve, head 350.00$ Each 2.00 700.00$ Grab Bars 205.00$ Each 2.00 410.00$ Patch flooring 7.00$ SF 12.00 84.00$ MN 1341.0442 - Provide adequate maneuvering space at Men's and Women's locker room doors Men - move conflicting toilet partition and water closet Modify conflicting partition 900.00$ Each 2.00 1,800.00$ Patch flooring 14.00$ SF 8.00 112.00$ Landings not at same level both sides of egress door Install new stoop at 10 locations Concrete stoop foundations 8' x 4' Excavation/Backfill 105.00$ LF 16.00 1,680.00$ Strip Footings 12" x 18"520.00$ CY 1.00 520.00$ 8" CMU foundation walls grout solid 9.00$ SF 90.00 810.00$ Reinforced Concrete stoop on metal form deck 520.00$ CY 1.00 520.00$ Exiting Non-compliant exit stairs to 2nd floor & pool egress Stair treads exceeds min. run of 11" and stair riser greater than max. 7". IBC1009.3. Bally Block TIF District LHB Project No. 140199 Page 2 of 2 Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002 Bally Block Proposed TIF District Project No. 140199 4900 Excelsior Blvd Parcel #07-028-24-21-0002 Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Remove existing steel and concrete stairs.3,000.00$ Each 2 6,000.00$ Provide new stairs at each location (assume 22 risers/stair)420.00$ Riser 44 18,480.00$ Provide new railings at each location 50 feet per stair 60.00$ Foot 200 12,000.00$ Provide new stair tread coverings 67.20$ Riser 44 2,956.80$ Fire Protection IBC Chapter 9 - Provide Fire Alarm System 0.95$ SF 24,685 23,450.75$ Provide sprinkler system in basement to comply with 903.2.12.1 and 903.2.12.1.3 Sprinkler piping and heads for building 4.05$ SF 24,685 99,974.25$ Provide 6" water line from public right of way, include cut and patch 300.00$ LF 80 24,000.00$ Roof Construction Remove and reinstall roof providing adequate sloped drainage MN1305.1507.10.1 to 1305.1507.15.1 Remove existing roof $3.25 SF 13,556 44,057.00$ Install new roofing system with 6" rigid insulation minimum with taper.$10.40 SF 13,556 140,982.40$ Add additional wood blocking $6.50 LF 638 4,147.00$ Install overflow drainage system at buildings 11 and 7 ( 13,700 SF) 4 roof drains 650.00$ Each 6 3,900.00$ 3" piping @ 300 feet 21.00$ LF 300 6,300.00$ Mechanical- Electrical Provide additional ventilation to comply with current code for fresh air MN 1346.0403 Section 403.3 Assumes 100% of floor area is non-code compliant Mechanical equipment, ductwork and units 8.80$ SF 24,685 217,228.00$ Additional electrical service and distribution for mechanical equipment 2.60$ SF 24,685 64,181.00$ Total Code Improvements 808,583.20$ Cover Image-rev 1.jpg IMGP4000.JPG IMGP3960.JPG IMGP3959.JPG IMGP4018.JPG IMGP4009.JPG IMGP4010.JPG IMGP4011.JPG IMGP3958.JPG IMGP3937.JPG IMGP3941.JPG IMGP3942.JPG IMGP3945.JPG IMGP3947.JPG IMGP3951.JPG IMGP3955.JPG Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard IMGP3956.JPG IMGP3969.JPG IMGP3971.JPG IMGP3976.JPG IMGP3982.JPG IMGP3991.JPG IMGP3993.JPG IMGP4001.JPG IMGP4014.JPG IMGP4019.JPG IMGP4020.JPG IMGP3815.JPG IMGP3817.JPG IMGP3818.JPG IMGP3823.JPG IMGP3824.JPG Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard IMGP3825.JPG IMGP3835.JPG IMGP3829.JPG IMGP3828.JPG IMGP3831.JPG IMGP3933.JPG IMGP3932.JPG IMGP3788.JPG IMGP3778.JPG IMGP3780.JPG IMGP3784.JPG IMGP3803.JPG IMGP3795.JPG IMGP3930.JPG IMGP3843.JPG IMGP3807.JPG Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard IMGP3837.JPG IMGP3874.JPG IMGP3875.JPG IMGP3877.JPG IMGP3882.JPG IMGP3790.JPG IMGP3883.JPG IMGP3884.JPG IMGP3888.JPG IMGP3891.JPG IMGP3918.JPG IMGP3893.JPG IMGP3894.JPG IMGP3785.JPG IMGP3786.JPG IMGP3896.JPG Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard IMGP3898.JPG IMGP3907.JPG IMGP3899.JPG IMGP3902.JPG IMGP3848.JPG IMGP3862.JPG IMGP3799.JPG IMGP3910.JPG IMGP3917.JPG IMGP3920.JPG Bally Block TIF Analysis Photos - 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Appendix G-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications To be added to prior to the public hearing But-For Analysis Current Market Value 2,759,580 New Market Value - Estimate 38,172,440 Difference 35,412,860 Present Value of Tax Increment 12,071,960 Difference 23,340,900 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 23,340,900 Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Agenda Item 4A 4A. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for proposed daycare Case No.: 15-43-CP and 15-44-Z Location: 2460 State Highway 100 Applicant: Alise McGregor Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use map for property located at 2640 State Highway 100 from Office to Commercial. Motion to recommend approval of the application to rezone 2640 State Highway 100 to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Description of Request: There are two applications before the Planning Commission: 1. Amend the comprehensive plan to change the land use map for the subject property from Office to Commercial. 2. Amend the zoning map to rezone the subject property from Office to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Location: Agenda Item No. 4A. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for proposed daycare Page 2 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Description of Request: The property is improved with a one story, 10,850 square foot office building. It was recently sold, and the new owners wish to open and operate a daycare facility. A daycare facility is not permitted in the Office district as a principal use, but is permitted with conditions in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district. Approval of the applications is required before the office building can be converted to a daycare facility. Zoning Analysis: Comprehensive Plan: Office Zoning: Office Current Land Use: Office Existing Conditions: The property is approximately 49,000 square feet in area, and is improved with a one-story, 10,850 square-foot office building. Parking is located on the north, west and south side. The Luther Volkswagen dealership is to the north, a three story apartment building is to the south. Parking lots, wetlands, and FEMA floodplains are to the west, and Highway 100 is to the east. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The zoning of the property must be consistent with the land use plan. Therefore, the property cannot be rezoned to a commercial zoning district until the land use map is first changed to Commercial. Below is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. It shows the subject property guided Office, which is consistent with the current zoning (Office). The request to change the designation from Office to Commercial is consistent with the adjacent property to the north, which is also guided Commercial. Agenda Item No. 4A. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for proposed daycare Page 3 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Goal 4, of the Comprehensive plan land use section (page IV-B22) encourages neighborhood commercial centers that will provide desirable and complementary services for the residents in the neighborhood. Changing the land use and zoning to allow neighborhood scale commercial uses such as a daycare provides an essential use for the neighborhood. Rezoning: If the designation on the land use map is changed to Commercial, then the property can be rezoned to either the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district or the C-2 General Commercial zoning district. The purpose of the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district is stated in the ordinance, and reads: “…to provide for low-intensity, service-oriented commercial uses for surrounding residential neighborhood. Limits will be placed on the type, size, and intensity of commercial uses in this district to ensure and protect compatibility with adjacent residential areas.” The proposed C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district will provide for low impact uses, such as a daycare, that are essential and desirable for the neighborhood. As noted above on the excerpt from the zoning map, the property to the north is zoned C-2 General Commercial, so rezoning the subject property to either the C-1 or C-2 zoning district is consistent with the current zoning in the area. Agenda Item No. 4A. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for proposed daycare Page 4 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 The proposed daycare is allowed in both the C-1 and the C-2 zoning districts as permitted with conditions. The conditions of approval are identical in both districts, and are as follows: Group care/nursery school. The conditions are as follows: a. A minimum of at least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a fence. b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c. The play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. In the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, the daycare can be constructed with just a building permit, a conditional use permit, or other public process, is not required. In addition to the conditions above, that are specific to the daycare use, it will also have to meet all other applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant chose the C-1 zoning district at the city’s request because the C-1 zoning district is more compatible with neighboring residential uses than the C-2 zoning district. The C-1 zoning district will not allow uses such as liquor stores, pawn shops, outdoor sales, motor vehicle repair, car washes, motor vehicle sales, and high impact sexually-oriented businesses. Agenda Item No. 4A. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for proposed daycare Page 5 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Zoning: The table below compares some of the standard dimensional performance standards for the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Office districts. Performance Standard C-1 Office Height 35 feet 240 feet Setbacks Front 5 feet 20 feet Side None, unless adjacent to a Residential district. Then same as required in that district. 15 feet on one side, half the building height on the other side. Rear 20 feet 15 feet In addition to performance standards, there are some differences in allowed uses. The following table lists the most common uses in each district. Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Allowed in both districts Office Animal handling Business trade school Hospital Appliance, small engine repair Printing process Convention hall Food service Studio Hotel/motel Funeral home Service High impact sexually oriented business Adult daycare Group care/nursery school Medical/dental office Museum Office Private entertainment (indoor) Restaurant Retail Parking lots Limited impact sexually oriented business Motor fuel station Educational academic Places of assembly In-vehicle sales & service Proposed Daycare: The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing building, and convert it from an office use to a daycare facility. The daycare is called Lil’ Newton’s, and it was started by the applicant started. This facility will be her fourth daycare. The others are located in Minnetonka, Plymouth and Champlin. Agenda Item No. 4A. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning for proposed daycare Page 6 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use map from Office to Commercial, and the proposed rezoning from Office to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Attachments: Proposed daycare site plan Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor TODDLER 804 S.F. PRESCHOOL 902 S.F. FOOD PREP 158 S.F. STAFF 322 S.F. INFANT 758 S.F. PRESCHOOL 929 S.F. PRESCHOOL 922 S.F.ELEC. TODDLER 809 S.F. TODDLER 805 S.F. INFANT 754 S.F.FRONTAGE ROADEA S E M E N T F O R IN G R E S S A N D EG R E S S PE R D O C . N O . 5 0 9 2 0 3 7 OUTDOOR PLAY AREA SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 A1 SITE PLAN AND FLOOR PLAN NORTH Proposed Alteration for:LITTLE NEWTONS2460 Highway 100St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416ISSUE/REVISIONS PROJECT # 1524810-13-2015 A1 SITE AND FLOOR PLAN 21 25 25 21 21 16 16 25 Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Agenda Item 4B 4B. Westside Center - Preliminary and Final Plat; Conditional Use Permit to Import Fill 5320 West 23rd Street Case No.: 15-40-CUP, 15-41-S Applicant: COB, LLC c/o Hillcrest Development, LLLP Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Westside Center Izzie Addition, subject to conditions. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to import approximately 2,785 cubic yards of fill material, including 1,229 cubic yards of fill in the floodplain district, subject to conditions. Description of Requests: The applicant proposes to expand the parking lot at the Westside Center located at 5320 West 23rd Street by approximately 60 more parking spaces to accommodate its projected parking demand when its remaining vacant tenant spaces are occupied. The proposal would require importing approximately 2,785 cubic yards of fill, including approximately 1,229 cubic yards that would be within the floodplain district. The City requires a conditional use permit when the amount of fill exceeds 400 cubic yards and for placing fill within the floodplain. There is also a separate and unrelated request to subdivide the northeast 2.7 acres from the overall 24.8 acre property. A current tenant, Zerorez, intends to purchase the east lot from COB, LLC. The two lots are proposed to be operated as a cohesive development, in part, with cross access and parking easements, common area maintenance obligations, and certain other restrictions. Background: COB, LLC (Owner) is in the process of completing a major renovation of the former Nestle Nestle/Novartis/Sandoz site into a multi-tenant office/industrial building. As of September 1, 2015, 83% of the previously vacant building has been leased to 10 tenants. At full occupancy, there may be up to 15 tenants and approximately 420 employees. The applicant wants to ensure that the parking provided on the site will accommodate the potential parking demand. The import of fill is needed to expand the parking lot in the southeast corner of the site and reduce the risk of flooding in the expanded parking lot area. The City has granted permits and approvals for two previous phases of development on the site, including a previous CUP for import and export of materials. The work under these previous permits continues on the site. Agenda Item No. 4B Westside Center –Preliminary & Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit Page 2 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Location: The property is generally located west of State Highway 100 and Utica Avenue S, south of the BNSF Railroad tracks and the N. Cedar Lake Regional Trail, and north of the 5500-5800 Blocks of 25 ½ Street W in the Birchwood Neighborhood. Comprehensive Plan: Industrial Zoning: IG – General Industrial, IP – Industrial Park, Floodplain District Surrounding Uses: East: Auto Body Shop, Highway 100, Utica Ave S, car dealership South: Multi-family apartments, city-owned land and wetland, single family houses West: city-owned land and wetland North: N. Cedar Lake Regional Trail, BNSF railroad tracks, condominiums, mini-storage, fitness center Preliminary and Final Plat Analysis: Description: The developer requests approval of the “Westside Center Izzie Addition” preliminary and final plat. The plat would subdivide the 24.8-acre property into one block and two lots. Uses: The existing industrial use is permitted in the I-G General Industrial and I-P Industrial Park zoning districts. Agenda Item No. 4B Westside Center –Preliminary & Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit Page 3 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Lot 1, Block 1 would be approximately 22.1 acres in size. The majority of the existing building approximately 213,400 sq. ft. (191,547 sq. ft. leasable), surface parking, outdoor storage, stormwater management, and compensatory flood storage pond are contained on this lot. The lot has frontage onto Utica Avenue and 23rd Street W. Lot 2, Block 1 will be approximately 2.7 acres in size. It fronts onto 23rd Street W. It includes 84,548 square feet of the building and surface parking. Require Agreements: The lots in the proposed plat meet all subdivision requirements for minimum lot size, shape, and dimensions. However, the proposed lots are reliant upon one another for parking and/or access. Permanent agreements for access, parking, and maintenance will be required to operate in compliance with City Code. This is a condition of approval. The on-site underground stormwater management systems are privately-owned and privately maintained. An easement and/or drainage agreement must also be engaged between the property owners so that proper drainage is maintained from the newly subdivided property. Easement Dedications: The plat provides the required perimeter easements, except along the interior lot line, due to the nature of the existing building and subdivision. This is a zero lot line subdivision of the building. Each of the parcels will be served by separate utilities and will have the required fire separations along the lot line. A subdivision variance is warranted and the easements along the common internal lot line between Lots 1 and 2 are not needed for public purposes. Easement Vacations: The City Council approved vacating certain easements on the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 earlier this year. The easement vacations were not effective when the plat was submitted for review. The vacations have been completed and recorded, so staff has directed the applicant to update the preliminary and final plat drawings accordingly prior to City Council review of the application. Park & Trail Dedication: Park dedication fees that will be due for the proposed Lot 2, Block 1. The fee will be 5% of the unimproved lot value. The City will collect the fees prior to signing the final plat. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will be asked to make a recommendation of accepting cash-in-lieu of land at an upcoming meeting. Lot 1, Block 1 is over 20 acres in size; therefore, it is exempt from park dedication requirements. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The CUP would allow for fill on the on the southeastern portion of the site to expand the parking lot by approximately 60 parking spaces. The proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. The CUP requirements for fill include an analysis of the following criteria: • Hauling Duration & Hours of Operation • Hauling Route • Equipment to be Used • Materials Used • Erosion Control • Stormwater • Floodplain Agenda Item No. 4B Westside Center –Preliminary & Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit Page 4 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 Hauling Duration & Hours of Operation: All the hauling and associated grading, paving, and landscaping is projected to last approximately 7 weeks and would begin in the spring of 2016 when site conditions and road restrictions allow. During this time, there will be an average of 5-10 trucks per day. It is estimated that there will be 25 total trucks to imort the fill. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. Weekend work is not expected, but may occur due to unexpected weather delays throughout the project. Hours would be limited to 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. as a condition of approval on weekends and holidays. These restrictions on the hours of operation are for all related construction activity, not just the hauling of materials to the site. Hauling Route: A map of the haul routes are attached. Trucks exiting the site will travel north on Utica Ave S, east on 23rd St W, and north on the Highway 100 east frontage road to I-394. Trucks entering the site will travel on I-394 and take Exit 5 (Westside Drive). Trucks will then turn right on Westside Dr and proceed to the driveway entrance on Utica Ave S. Equipment to be Used: Construction equipment will consist of backhoes, crusher, bulldozers, end- and belly dump trucks. Materials Used: Clean fill will be imported and used on the site that is suitable for the proposed use, again, estimated to be 2,785 cubic yards. Erosion Control: To mitigate the effects on the surrounding community, the developer plans to install rock construction entrances, silt fence, and catchbasin inserts downstream from the site. Also, construction sweeping and watering of the site will be implemented as needed. Any soil stockpiles will be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site. Stormwater: The proposed addition increases the impervious surface on the site. Additional biofiltration basins will be installed on-site north of the parking lot addition to capture initial stormwater flow and then flow to the large biofiltration basin (stormwater pond). The previously approved stormwater pond that is under construction has capacity to accommodate the added stormwater. All stormwater will filter through this system prior to discharging into the city storm sewer. The stormwater management plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the plan meets all water treatment and rate control requirements. Floodplain: The proposed project would impact 1,229 cubic yards of floodplain. Combined with the previously approved work approved for the site, the total fill within the floodplain will be 2,485.5 cubic yards. The site provides 2,498.6 cubic yards of compensatory floodplain storage volume on the western portion of the site. This area was previously outside the floodplain district and expands the storage area previously approved for the Phase II improvements. Agenda Item No. 4B Westside Center –Preliminary & Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit Page 5 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 The MCWD and Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the proposed site grading, drainage, and utility plans and approved the proposed changes administratively as an amendment to the permits that have already been issued for the site. The City Engineering Department also reviewed the plans and concurs that the work will not cause a flood stage increase. Based on the review of the Engineering Department, MWCD and Army Corps of Engineers, staff finds that the proposal does not endanger life or property, it does not cause a stage increase of the 100-year flood event, and it does not increase flood heights or velocities. The compensating storage of floodwaters displaced by the import of fill is located where it achieves the goal of eliminating a stage increase, and the area where the compensating storage is proposed was outside of the 100-year flood zone before development as compensating storage. The project will reduce the susceptibility of the proposed parking lot and vehicles in parking lot to flood damage. The plan meets the City’s minimum requirements for fill in the floodplain. Tree Removals The proposed new work will result in the removal of six significant trees, including two Cottonwood and four American Elm trees. The total new removals will total 72.5 caliper inches. Overall the required tree replacement, including previous phases, totals 399.6 caliper inches. Landscaping Plan The overall plan proposes to plant 179 trees (technically 174 trees as counted in the zoning code), 700 shrubs and 618 perennials. Staff estimates the proposed landscaping plan provides approximately 531 caliper inches. Several of the trees being planted are larger than the minimum size required, which will give a head start to adding screening on the site and also helps the applicant meet the tree replacement requirements on site, rather than paying fees to the City’s tree fund. Staff finds the landscaping and tree replacement requirements will be met on the site. Additional Considerations Staff finds: 1. The overall use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation as industrial, and the renovation of the site has restored the site as a major employment center in the community. 2. The proposed fill and expanded off-street parking use 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. 3. The proposal is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning districts in which the proposed fill is located. 4. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements. Agenda Item No. 4B Westside Center –Preliminary & Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit Page 6 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 5. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans, provided that 6-inch high, poured-in-place concrete curb and gutter is provided around the periphery of the parking lot, except where the City Engineer determines that a curb will impede the drainage plan. 6. It does not conflict with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to import fill material and for fill within the floodplain, subject to following conditions: 1. The proposed parking lot design shall be amended to provide 6-inch high, poured-in- place concrete curb and gutter around the periphery of the parking lot, except where the City Engineer determines that a curb will impede the drainage plan. These changes shall be made to the plan prior to City Council consideration of the application. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 3. All construction activities related to grading, paving and landscaping the site occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on the weekdays. Truck hauling shall be limited to 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM in accordance with the applicant’s proposed hours. Any construction work related to this application on weekends or holidays shall be limited to 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 4. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting the work, including but not necessarily limited to, parking lot permit from the Community Development Department, an erosion control permit from the Engineering Department, and storm water utility permit from the Inspections Department. 5. The applicant shall reimburse the City’s expenses related to attorney fees in drafting or reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary and final plat shall be amended prior to City Council consideration to reflect the easement vacations approved by Ordinances No. 2467-15 that have been recorded with Hennepin County. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 3. Permanent cross access, parking, stormwater, and maintenance agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be recorded upon the filing of the final plat and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building(s) in order for the site to operate in compliance with City requirements. Said agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Agenda Item No. 4B Westside Center –Preliminary & Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit Page 7 Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 4. Building separation along the common lot line is required to meet the provisions of the 2015 Minnesota State Building Code. Signed architectural and structural engineer documentation is required to meet the provisions of Chapter 7, Fire and Smoke Protection Features. The City must receive the design and code language for separation and stability that meets the requirements for Section 706 Fire Walls. These improvements shall be installed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. Private utility service lines shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site. 6. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a. Permanent cross access, parking, stormwater, and maintenance easements or agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be submitted for City review, and City Attorney review and approval as to the form. b. Park dedication fees shall be paid. c. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. d. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that installation of iron monuments at property corners. 7. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner. c. All necessary permits must be obtained. d. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, utility, street lights, landscaping, etc.) and the private site underground stormwater management system and landscaping. 8. The applicant shall reimburse the City’s expenses related to attorney fees in drafting or reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. Attachments: Preliminary & Final Plat Site Plans related to the Conditional Use Permit revised 09/30/2015 Landscaping Plans Haul Route Map Stormwater Calculations Report (excerpts) Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner N LEGEND VICINITY MAP SITE N REVISIONSPAGE DRAWING NAME: JOB NO. FILE NO. FIELD BOOK Hillcrest Development SURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 SHEET 1 OF 1 DRAWN BY: BY:CHECKED FIELDWORKCHIEF: WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 PHONE: (612) 466-3300 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100 FAX: (612) 466-3383WESTSIDE CENTER IZZIE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: B L O C K 1 2 1 N R.T. DOC. NO. C.R. DOC. NO. 12 7 33 36 7012 7 30 10 1023 12 11 12 14 14 18 13 7 5 9 9 9 9 9 7 6 31 33 36 8 30 24 24 2770 S S S S S ST ST ST STST ST MW MW Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description Lum. Lumens 10 BB SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140 15 A SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140 30 10 1023 12 8 30 24 24 27 MW Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Description Lum. Lumens 10 BB SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140 15 A SINGLE 0.900 D816-LED-160-50-UNV-T3/4-SF-BZ/25FT SSS POLE 16140 12 7 30 10 1023 12 11 12 14 14 18 13 7 5 9 9 9 9 9 7 6 31 33 36 8 30 24 24 2770 S S S S S ST ST ST STST ST MW MW Truck Hauling Routes STORMWATER CALCULATIONS FOR Lyman Lumber 5320 West 23rd Street St Louis Park, MN September 3, 2015 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or repor t was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 41333 09/03/15 Name: Rhonda S. Pierce Reg. No. Date P I E RC E P I N I & A S S O C I AT E S , I N C . C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S – 2 – INDEX 1. DRAINAGE NARRATIVE 2. DRAINAGE CALCULATION SUMMARY a. DRAINAGE AREAS b. RATE SUMMARY BY SUBCATCHMENT c. RATE SUMMARY BY REACH d. WATER QUALITY VOLUME e. PHOSPHOROUS CALCULATIONS – PROPOSED CONDITIONS f. PHOSPHPROUS CALCULATIONS – REMOVAL SUMMARY 3. DRAINAGE MAPS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAINAGE MAP b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRAINAGE MAP c. TOTAL SITE DISTURBED AREA MAP d. 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN - EXISTING MAP e. 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN – CUT/FILL MAP f. WETLAND IMPACT MAP 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROCAD REPORT a. 1-YEAR EVENT b. 10-YEAR EVENT c. 100-YEAR EVENT 5. PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROCAD REPORT a. 1-YEAR EVENT b. 10-YEAR EVENT c. 100-YEAR EVENT 6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M 5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #14-052 Page 1 of 4 R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc STORMWATER MANGEMENT NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The existing site is located at 5320 23rd Street West, St. Louis Park, MN. The site consists of the Nestle Healthcare Nutrition buildings and bituminous parking lots. The property is bounded by West 23rd Street and West 24th Street to the south, ABRA Autobody & Glass and Utica Avenue South to the east. The property is adjacent to existing wetlands to the west and the North Cedar Regional Trail to the north. Phase 1 of the project began in the fall of 2014, which included the demolition of building 3 and the surrounding loading dock area in the center of the site. There were also some pavement removals on the northeast and northwest side of the site that were associated with tenant initiated loading dock improvements and the construction of exterior ramps. The exterior demolition on the second phase of this project will consist of the removal of existing bituminous pavement and existing utilities on the western side of the site. The total site is 24.8 acres of which consists 12.84 acres of impervious surfaces. The eastern portion of the site currently drains to existing city storm sewer in west 23rd street. The central portion of the site and the northern edge of the site currently collect in a series of private catch basins that direct the storm water to the city storm sewer in west 24th street. The western portion of the site currently drains to the south and south-west to two existing catch basins and existing wetlands. Soils Braun Intertec has performed a geotechnical evaluation for this site. The geotechnical report indicated the on-site soils for this project primarily consist of fill materials composed of silty sand, clayey sand, sand and lesser amounts of lean clay and silt. The fill layer is underlain by swamp deposits, peat and clays. The thickness of the underlying organic materials increases in thickness to the south and west in the area of the proposed development. The soils are not considered conducive to infiltration. The infiltration rate for this soil type, per the MPCA manual, is 0.06 in/hr. The groundwater table was encountered approximately 6.5 to 20 feet below grade with the 6.5’ water likely a perched water condition. Proposed Conditions This redevelopment project consists of three phases. The first phase consists of constructing a new bituminous parking lot in place of the removed building 3 and improvements to the loading dock areas for tenant uses. The new parking lot at the site of the old building 3 will include several pervious islands constructed to differentiate the parking aisles and loading docks areas. A bituminous path will also be constructed along the north side of the building to provide access from the existing egress locations. Within the new parking lot, four new stormwater catch basins with 4’ sumps will be installed to provide drainage and Best Management Practices for the area. This storm sewer will connect to the existing private storm sewer, which ultimately connects to the city storm sewer in Utica Ave S. and W. 24th Street. In the northwest corner of the site a new concrete loading dock pad will be installed. This will also include the installation of two new guard posts and a stormwater catch basin with a 4’ sump. On the eastern side of the 5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #14-052 Page 2 of 4 R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc site, two new van ramps will be constructed to allow access into and out of the elevated building. This will also include some reconstruction of the existing parking lot, sidewalks and an ADA ramp. The second phase of the project will occur on the southwestern portion of the site. Stormwater management will be required due to the extent of the disturbed area within this phase of work. This phase will include the construction of a ring road that sweeps around the western side of the property to provide tenant access to the northwestern portion of the building. Within the ring road a secured outdoor storage lot will be constructed for one of the tenants. Included in this tenant improvement is a thirty-six thousand square foot at-grade one-story building that will be constructed along the southern edge of the existing building 12. Additionally, along the southern side of the ring road a new parking lot will be constructed to accommodate the additional parking stalls required by the new addition. The third phase of the project will include the expansion of the parking lot on the south side of the site. These additional stalls will accommodate the increase in building tenants for the spring of 2016. The parking lot addition will require supplemental stormwater management, site lighting, landscaping, retaining walls and flood plain compensatory storage. Stormwater Management The total disturbed area on the site is approximately 12.34 acres which is 49.65% of the total site. The impervious surface area will be increased 2.74 acres to a total of 15.58 acres for the entire site. The required water quality volume was determined by multiplying the impervious surface area of the entire site by a two inch rainfall depth (the 50% abstraction method was used because the existing soil conditions are not conducive to infiltration). The proposed stormwater management consists of three interconnected biofiltration basins. The majority of the existing building’s roof and the roof of the proposed addition will be collected by a series of roof drains that will be directed to the stormwater system. The proposed ring road, storage yard and two southern most parking lots will also be collected and routed to the stormwater management system. The proposed stormwater management system consists of four interconnected biofiltration basins that connect to a larger biofiltration basin on the south side of the ring road. The stormwater will sheet flow into the smaller basins and will filtrate through a sand media section to the bottom of the basin. Within the filtration media, there will be perforated draintile that will collect the stormwater and direct it to the large biofiltration basin via proposed stormwater sewer. Each of the smaller biofiltration basins will have a raised outlet that will allow larger volumes of stormwater to flow to the larger basin more quickly in larger rainfall events. Due to the limited vertical clearance between the bottom of the smaller biofiltration basins and the bottom of the pavement sections on the western side of the site, larger culverts were utilized to provide the discharge capacity needed to allow the stormwater drainage to pass under the pavement sections. A box culvert has been provided for the crossing under the driveway entrance and three round culverts were provided for the crossing under the south side of the ring road. Once again the vertical limitations required the culverts to be buried deeper so that the top sections of the culverts will be utilized for drainage. The three box culvert that was selected is the lowest profile culver that is provide by the manufacturer. The lower half of the culverts will then be filled with grout to provide the cross-sectional area that is required. Since the southern 5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #14-052 Page 3 of 4 R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc section crossing the road had more available width, round culverts were used instead of a box culvert. Unfortunately HydroCAD is not able to model a customized pipe section, so a box culvert was used to model the section under the ring road. The required cross-sectional area was calculated and then converted to an equivalent area of half of the area of round culvert pipes. The large biofiltration basin will consist of a storage pool volume above a three foot layer of filtration media that is embedded with perforated draintile. The entire water quality volume will filtrate through the sand layer before discharging to the city storm sewer. The MPCA design guidelines recommend a three foot minimum depth of filtration media to ensure sufficient Total Suspended Solid (TSS) removals and Phosphorous removals. Additional treatment will be required to meet the MCWD phosphorus control requirement which is the amount equivalent to that which would be achieved through abstraction of one inch of rainfall from the site’s impervious surface. Since there are sections of the site that are infeasible to collect and treat, the proposed biofiltration basin will be modified with iron enhancements to achieve the required amount of phosphorous removals. The filtration media will be modified so that 0.3% of the volume will consist of iron filings, which will allow for additional removals of dissolved phosphorus within the collected stormwater. The biofiltration basin will also include a raised overflow weir wall that will be utilized in larger stormwater events. This weir wall overflow will allow excess storm water to discharge to the western side of the site while controlling the rate of discharge. This outlet will be heavily rip-rapped to prevent scouring and erosion issues on the downstream end. During construction, additional test pits were excavated and it was discovered that there was perched ground water at a higher elevation than previously expected in the location of the large biofiltration basin. An impervious (60 mil geomembrane) liner will be installed at the bottom of the system to prevent perched groundwater from percolating up into the drain tile and ultimately to the city stormwater sewer. Additional precautions were included to weigh down the liner and protect it from being damaged. Please see the associated details on sheet C5.1 Additional best management practices will also be incorporated on the proposed site with 4’ sediment sumps in the proposed catch basins throughout the site to limit pollutant generation. There will also be additional enhancements to the site by the means of new trees and parking lot islands throughout the property. Wetlands A wetland delineation report has been completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated September 2014 and the wetland boundaries were verified by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) this spring. On May 5, 2015, representatives from the MCWD, BWDR, and U.S. ACOE met in a pre-application meeting to discuss the proposed project. The proposed impact of the existing wetland includes 4,595 SF of wet meadow area (wetland 1) and 9,410 SF of a seasonally flooded basin (wetland 3). A Minnesota/ACOE joint wetland permit application has be submitted by Pinnacle Engineering, INC (PN: R015264.00). The application is requesting sequencing flexibility and proposing the purchase of wetland banking credits, thereby ensuring the public value of the replacement wetland will be greater than the public value of the proposed impacted wetlands. Please see the application for more information pertaining to the wetland impacts. A wetland impact exhibit has also been included in this report for reference. 5320 23rd Street West St. Louis Park, MN Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #14-052 Page 4 of 4 R:\Project Folders\2014\14-052 Lyman Lumber Build-out\Phase 3 - Parking Expansion\Stormwater Report\02 - Drainage Narrative.doc 100 Year Flood Plain Elevation The existing Hennepin county floodplain maps were determine to be inaccurate as the floodplain does not follow a consistent contour line. The MCWD was able to update the DNR’s FEMA XPSWMM Model with the current ATLAS 14 rainfall data. The updated 100 year flood plain elevation was determined to be 880.00 for the NGVD 1929 datum, which is the equivalent elevation of 879.8 for the NAVD 1988 datum that was used for the project’s survey. The project Surveyor, Brent Peters, from Egan, Field & Novak, INC. submitted a Letter of Map amendment (LOMA) determination document to FEMA. The final determination was received from FEMA in April, 2015 (Case Number 15-05-3433A). This updated elevation has been shown on the provided survey and plans. The proposed design impacts 2,485.5 cubic yards of floodplain. A proposed compensatory flood plain storage volume of 2,498.6 cubic yards will be provided on the western portion of the site to mitigate the lost floodplain storage throughout the site. Please see the attached exhibits and calculations for details. Sediment and Erosion Control Silt fence, catchbasin inserts and biologs will need to be placed along the perimeter of the disturbed construction area prior to construction to prevent silt from leaving the site. A rock construction entrance will need to be established and site street sweeping performed throughout the construction phase. Soils stockpiles shall be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site. Permanent erosion control will consist of sod and paved sidewalks and roads. Slopes and swales will be stabilized with a heavy duty erosion control mat designed for the intended area. Please refer to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for additional information regarding to the project. Lyman Lumber Stormwater Drainage Area Summary PN: 14-052 9/3/2015 Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Area Drainage Area Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value EX1 12,820 80 22,210 98 35,030 91 EX2 2,104 80 7,850 98 9,954 94 EX3.1 0 80 7,732 98 7,732 98 EX3.2 0 80 25,297 98 25,297 98 EX3.3 0 80 30,080 98 30,080 98 EX3.4 0 80 4,987 98 4,987 98 EX3.5 0 80 7,115 98 7,115 98 EX3.6 0 80 45,793 98 45,793 98 EX3.7 0 80 49,584 98 49,584 98 EX3.8 0 80 8,834 98 8,834 98 EX3.9 0 80 21,939 98 21,939 98 EX4 0 80 16,181 98 16,181 98 EX5 2,246 80 28,024 98 30,270 97 EX6.1 7,120 80 63,219 98 70,339 96 EX6.2 11,519 80 6,733 98 18,252 87 EX7 35,173 80 48,623 98 83,796 90 EX8.1 10,411 80 30,426 98 40,837 93 EX8.2 28,714 80 9,410 98 38,124 84 EX9 0 80 8,350 98 8,350 98 EX10 413,398 80 116,913 98 530,311 84 Total =523,505 Total =559,300 Total =1,082,805 Pervious Area Impervious Area Total Area Drainage Area Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value Area [SF]CN Value PR1 11,256 80 23,774 98 35,030 92 PR2 2,131 80 7,823 98 9,954 94 PR3 10,044 80 48,756 98 58,800 95 PR4.1 0 80 7,732 98 7,732 98 PR4.2 0 80 25,297 98 25,297 98 PR4.3 0 80 30,080 98 30,080 98 PR4.4 0 80 4,987 98 4,987 98 PR4.5 0 80 7,115 98 7,115 98 PR4.6 0 80 45,793 98 45,793 98 PR4.7 0 80 49,584 98 49,584 98 PR4.8 0 80 8,834 98 8,834 98 PR4.9 0 80 21,939 98 21,939 98 PR5 0 80 36,495 98 36,495 98 PR6.1 6,715 80 5,392 98 12,107 88 PR6.2 2,338 80 47,947 98 50,285 97 PR6.3 1,454 80 5,527 98 6,981 94 PR6.4 4,041 80 3,545 98 7,586 88 PR7.1 11,185 80 42,040 98 53,225 94 PR7.2 6,274 80 28,038 98 34,312 95 PR8 13,184 80 527 98 13,711 81 PR9.1 4,844 80 94,211 98 99,055 97 PR9.2 0 80 15,083 98 15,083 98 PR9.3 13,010 80 88,376 98 101,386 96 PR10 45,141 80 3,828 98 48,969 81 PR11 257,139 80 25,853 98 282,992 82 PR12 15,473 80 0 98 15,473 80 Total =404,229 Total =678,576 Total =1,082,805 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Lyman Lumber Stormwater - Discharge Rate Summary by Subcatchment PN: 14-052 9/3/2015 Existing Conditions 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year Drainage Area Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft) EX1 1.74 3.59 5.44 0.099 0.212 0.329 EX2 0.76 1.46 2.14 0.033 0.066 0.100 EX3.1 0.58 1.05 1.51 0.031 0.058 0.074 EX3.2 1.91 3.42 4.93 0.103 0.189 0.276 EX3.3 2.27 4.07 5.86 0.122 0.225 0.328 EX3.4 0.38 0.67 0.97 0.020 0.037 0.054 EX3.5 0.54 0.96 1.39 0.029 0.053 0.078 EX3.6 3.46 6.20 8.92 0.186 0.343 0.500 EX3.7 3.75 6.71 9.65 0.201 0.371 0.541 EX3.8 0.67 1.20 1.72 0.036 0.066 0.096 EX3.9 1.66 2.97 4.27 0.089 0.164 0.239 EX4 1.22 2.19 3.15 0.066 0.121 0.177 EX5 2.13 3.87 5.59 0.117 0.220 0.324 EX6.1 5.31 9.79 14.21 0.258 0.496 0.737 EX6.2 0.74 1.70 2.67 0.041 0.097 0.156 EX7 2.68 5.77 8.86 0.224 0.491 0.769 EX8.1 2.79 5.46 8.09 0.128 0.263 0.401 EX8.2 1.21 3.02 4.92 0.073 0.183 0.303 EX9 0.73 1.31 1.88 0.034 0.063 0.091 EX10 12.90 32.76 53.69 1.015 2.540 4.210 Proposed Conditions 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year Drainage Area Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Event (cfs)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft) PR2 0.76 1.46 2.14 0.033 0.066 0.100 PR4.4 0.38 0.67 0.97 0.020 0.037 0.054 PR4.6 3.46 6.20 8.92 0.186 0.343 0.500 PR6.1 0.62 1.36 2.11 0.029 0.066 0.106 PR6.4 0.31 0.69 1.08 0.018 0.042 0.066 PR8 0.26 0.73 1.25 0.022 0.059 0.101 PR11 5.31 14.43 24.31 0.481 1.262 2.134 PR12 0.29 0.83 1.43 0.023 0.064 0.111 System A (1)0.65 0.71 0.72 2.421 3.992 4.111 System A (2)0.00 0.72 16.25 0.000 0.206 1.938 CB C (2)4.57 12.61 22.59 0.052 0.583 1.075 Lyman Lumber Stormwater Rate and Volume Summary PN: 14-052 9/3/2015 Existing Condtions Proposed Conditions Rate (cfs)Rate (cfs) 1-Year Event 47.43 16.61 10-Year Event 98.17 40.41 100-Year Event 149.86 81.77 Existing Condtions Proposed Conditions Volume (ac-ft)Volume (ac-ft) 1-Year Event 2.905 3.285 10-Year Event 6.258 6.720 100-Year Event 9.783 10.296 Lyman Lumber Stormwater Rate and Volume Summary By Reach PN: 14-052 Reach Existing Rate (cfs)Proposed Rate (cfs) 23rd Street 4.05 4.05 24th Street 16.09 5.80 South Wetland 10.11 0.29 South Off-Site 2.68 0.9 West Wetland 12.9 5.31 Reach Existing Rate (cfs)Proposed Rate (cfs) 23rd Street 7.31 7.31 24th Street 29.91 15.20 South Wetland 19.29 0.83 South Off-Site 5.77 1.42 West Wetland 32.76 14.43 Reach Existing Rate (cfs)Proposed Rate (cfs) 23rd Street 10.56 10.56 24th Street 43.64 26.56 South Wetland 28.50 1.43 South Off-Site 8.86 1.97 West Wetland 53.69 40.32 1-year Storm Event 100-year Storm Event 10-year Storm Event Lyman Lumber - Water Quality CalculationsPN: 14-052 9/3/15Impervious Required TreatmentRequired TreatmentDrainage Area IdentificationArea (sq. ft.)Depth (in.)Volume (cu. ft.)PR123,77423,962PR27,82321,304PR348,75628,126PR4.17,73221,289PR4.225,29724,216PR4.330,08025,013PR4.44,9872831PR4.57,11521,186PR4.645,79327,632PR4.749,58428,264PR4.88,83421,472PR4.921,93923,657PR536,49526,083PR6.15,3922899PR6.247,94727,991PR6.35,5272921PR6.43,5452591PR7.142,04027,007PR7.228,03824,673PR8527288PR9.194,211215,702PR9.215,08322,514PR9.388,376214,729PR103,8282638PR1125,85324,309PR12020Total Required Volume678,5762113,096Water Quality CalculationsProposed Stormwater Management Systemslowest PoolOverflow OutletDescriptionElevation (ft.)Elevation (ft.)System A - Large Filtration Pond878.0880.9System B - N Parking Lot Filtration Swale878.3881.0System B - S Parking Lot Filtration Swale878.0880.2System C - NW Filtration Swale878.2880.2System C - SW Filtration Swale878.1880.1116,8755,450Total Required Volume100,5472,177Below overflow outlet (cu. ft.)Abstraction Volume3,944.04,757 Lyman LumberStormwater Drainage Area Summary & Phosphorous LoadingPN: 14-0529/3/2015Proposed ConditionsPerviousImperviousImperviousOutflow DeviceDrainage AreaNon RoofNon RoofRoofTo:PR111,25623,7740 PondPR22,1317,8230 CityPR3 10,044 48,756 0 PondPR4.1 0 0 7,732 PondPR4.2 0 0 25,297 PondPR4.30030,080PondPR4.4004,987 CityPR4.5007,115PondTotal Site with (partial concentration on roofs)PR4.600 45,793 CityRoofsPR4.700 49,584 PondP=26 inPR4.8008,834 PondI=100.0 %PR4.900 21,939 PondRv=0.95PR500 36,495 PondC=0.13 mg/LPR6.16,7155,3920 CityA=5.46 AcPR6.22,33847,9470 PondPR6.31,4545,5270PondL(post R)=3.5lbs/yearPR6.44,0413,5450 CityNon-RoofsPR7.111,18542,0400 PondP=26 inPR7.26,27428,0380 PondI=52.2 %PR813,1845270 OffsiteRv=0.52PR9.14,84494,2110 PondC=0.3 mg/LPR9.2015,0830 PondA=19.40 AcPR9.313,01088,3760 PondPR1045,1413,8280PondL(post NR)=15.7lbs/yearPR11257,13925,8530 OffsiteTotalPR1215,47300OffsiteCheck TotalL (post)=19.2lbs/yearTotal (SF)= 404,229440,720 237,8561,082,805Total (AC)=9.2810.125.4624.86 Lyman Lumber Stormwater Drainage Area Summary & Phosphorous Removals PN: 14-052 9/3/2015 Summary Pervious Imp.(Non Roof) Imp. (Roof) Imp. (Total) Total City 0.30 0.38 1.17 1.55 1.85 Pond 2.42 9.13 4.29 13.42 15.84 Offsite 6.56 0.61 0.00 0.61 7.17 Total 9.28 10.12 5.46 15.58 24.86 Pollutant Load L(post)= 19.2 lbs/year L(pre)=15.8 lbs/year BMP Removal Requirement L(post)= 19.2 lbs/year BMP(Filtration) 50.0 % DA (Fraction of Imp.) 100.0 % LR=9.6 lbs/year Proposed BMP Removal L(post)= 19.2 lbs/year BMP(Filtration) 50.0 % BMP(iron filing) 8.2 % BMP(Total) 58.2 % DA (Fraction of Imp.) 86.2 % LR=9.6 lbs/year This scenario demonstrates the phosphorous removals if 100% of the site's impervious surface area is collected and routed to a hypothetical filtration system Filtration system removal efficiency = 50% *Iron Enhancements at a ratio of 0.3% will get an average removal rate of 18.3% of the dissolved phosphorous. The amount of dissolved phosphorous is approximately 45% of the total influent concentration. (18.3%*45%=8.24%). The proposed design routes 12.92 acres of the total 15.17 acres of the site impervious surfaces to the proposed stormwater system. (13.42ac/15.58ac=86.2%) Filtration system removal efficiency = 50% WWWWW W W W W W W W W W W WU EUEU EUEUEUEUEUEUEG G GGGGGGGUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUFUF UF ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AREA = 43,327 SF EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AREA = 235,203 SF ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES FILLED FLOODPLAIN AREA = 33,390 SF FILLED FLOODPLAIN AREA = 5,623 SF EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AREA TO REMIAN= 9,837 SF FILLED FLOODPLAIN AREA = 10,742 SF EXCAVATED FLOODPLAIN AREA = 27,655 SF ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES ST. LOUIS PARK, MNPIERCE PINI & ASSOCIATES City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission Agenda Item 5A Meeting of October 21, 2005 Proposed Annual Meeting with Council Program Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to develop a new process whereby all Commissions would meet collectively to present their annual report to Council. The attached report outlines a process for the proposed Annual Meeting with Council Program. Planning Commissioners may contact Administrative staff directly with any comments by November 6, 2015. You may submit your comments to Anisha Murphy, Administrative Intern, amurphy@stlouispark.org Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 28, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Board and Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this item is to inform the City Council of a proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program” where each of the City’s various boards and commissions will be invited to present their annual reports to City Council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any questions or concerns or need more information regarding the Annual Meeting with Council Program night? Does the Council have other changes to this process? SUMMARY: Earlier this year, Council directed staff to develop a process whereby all Commissions would meet collectively to present their annual report to Council. The purpose of this report is to outline a process for the proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program.” Under the current “Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions”, each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss the report and other issues of concern to the Commission prior to approving the report and, as needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report. If approved by Council, the proposed “Annual Meeting with Council Program” would take place at the beginning of each calendar year. Current procedures would be revised for the annual meeting where each Board or Commission would be afforded a total of 15 minutes with 5 minutes of the presentation dedicated to their presentation, and the remaining 10 minutes reserved for discussion with the City Council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion List of Current Commissions Prepared by: Anisha Murphy, Administrative Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/ HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the current Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, each board or commission prepares a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss the report and other issues of concern to the commission prior to approving the report and, as needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report. On Jan 26th, 2015 Council directed staff to modify the annual reporting for Commissions and develop a process where all come together on an annual basis to hold the annual report out at a study session. • Currently, there are twelve (12) Boards or Commissions represented throughout the City of St. Louis Park. • Eight (8) Boards or Commissions follow the procedures to complete the annual reports to City Council at the Annual Meeting with Council Program. • Based on the nature of the work of these commissions and past practice these 4 Boards and Commissions do not have annual reporting or presentations: Charter Commission, Fire Civil Service Commission, Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC), and Community Education Advisory Commission. New Annual Board and Commission Meeting Program Process Written Reports: • For each calendar year, each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals for the coming year. • Each board or commission must submit an electronic copy of their annual reports to the staff liaison for each Board or Commission no later than December 31 each year. • Reports are submitted to the Council prior to the annual board and commission meeting. Presentation Instructions • Each board or commission will select one (1) representative from their respective organization’s to report out the annual report. • Each Commission is allowed 20 minutes total for presentation and discussion o 10 minutes for presentation of their annual report o 10 minutes allotted to City Council for any questions, comments, and follow-up requests. The following Boards and Commissions will participate: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)- 5 members (6:00-6:20PM) 2. Planning Commission-8 Members (6:20-6:40PM) 3. Telecommunications Advisory Commission- 8 members (6:40-7:00PM) 4. Housing Authority- 5 members (7:00-7:20PM) 5. Human Rights Commission- 8 Members (7:20-7:40PM) 6. Parks and Recreations -8 Members (7:40-8:00PM) 7. Police Advisory Commission- 12 members (8:00-8:20PM) 8. Environment and Sustainability Commission-13 members (8:20-8:40PM) The tentative schedule for Boards and Commissions Night is as follows: • 5:30PM o Check-in & welcome o Food/ refreshments provided • 6PM- 8:40PM (1:15 minutes in total for presentations) o Five (5) minutes per annual report o Ten(10) minutes for questions, comments, and follow-up requests from City Council • 8:40-9 PM- Wrap-up/Adjourn Next Steps • Formal approval of changes of Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. • Provide information to each Board and Commissions. Each Board or Commission shall present their oral and written annual reports in accordance with the Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, and each organization’s bylaws. • Set Annual Board and Commission Meeting.