HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/04/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 12, 2021
All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other
electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with
the local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056.
The St. Louis Park City Council will meet on April 12, 2021 at 6:15 p.m. by videoconference to
convene the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE), which will be followed by the city
council study session at 6:30 p.m. Meeting participants will meet by electronic device or
telephone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place
at 5005 Minnet onka Blvd. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
or by calling +1.312.535.8110 and using access code 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco Webex
will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council members
and staff participating from multiple locations.
6:15 p.m. CONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION (LBAE)
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
2. 7:00 p.m. Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review
3. 7:30 p.m. Zoning code size limits for houses
4. 8:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:35 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
5. Boards and commissions appointment process update
6. Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge and public art update
7. Climate Champions cost sharing program
8. Transit-oriented development zoning district
The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display
on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are availabl e by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Executive summary
Title: 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Recommended action: Mayor to convene the meeting, following agenda is suggested.
1.Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2.Roll Call of Board Members – Declaration of Quorum
3.Motion to Appoint Chair
4.Acknowledgement of Trained Member (Kraft & Rog)
5.a. Accept Roster of Appellants
b. Call for Any Additional Appellants
6.If necessary – Motion to set Date and Time for Continued Proceedings (Reconvene)
Suggested as April 26, 2021 prior to Study Session
7.Instruct Assessor to:
a. Inform Appellants of Reconvene Date & Board Process via Telephone and Mail
b. Inform Appellants of the County Board Application Date (May 22 Requested)
c.Re -Inspect Discussion and Re-Appraise Parcels Under Appeal
8.Completion of the Local Board Certification Form
9.Motion to Recess
Policy consideration: Local Boards and/or Open Book Meetings are required by law. The Board must
complete its business within 20 days (April 12 is day one, May 1 is therefore the deadline).
Summary: Minnesota statute requires that all properties are valued at full market value. All property
owners, tenants and those having an interest in real property are entitled to appeal their
classification and market value. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the
property. The market value is an opinion based on records maintained for every property and the
market conditions as of the date of assessment (January 2).
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable for budgeting from the perspective of the taxing
jurisdictions. Changes made by the Board may affect the property owner’s share of the total
property tax budgets as levied for the Payable 2022 tax period.
Strategic Priority Consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of duties and responsibilities
Sample letter – to be sent to each appellant by April 14
Board of Appeal and Equalization Training (state.mn.us)
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, city assessor
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief f inancial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 12, 2021 Page 2
Title: 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are statutory,
primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01. Additional reference is provided by the MN
Department of Revenue Board Training Manual (2018 update – direct link on page 1).
•The valuation notices shall be in writing and sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar days
before the meeting. The valuation notice will include the date, place and time set for the
meetings of the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization as well as the Hennepin County Board of
Appeal & Equalization.
•The City Clerk shall give published notice and posted notice of the meeting. The meetings must
be held between April 1 and May 31 including reconve ne meetings. The board must complete its
work and adjourn within 20 calendar days – convene date is day one. In terms of practical
compliance, the Local Board should not run later than May 11 in order for the County Board to
effectively operate within its statutory time window (application request date is May 21).
•The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official public meeting similar to a City Council
public hearing and cannot convene without a quorum. The local assessor, the county assessor, or
one of their assistants is required to attend.
•At least one member present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization must
be certified as having completed the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MN DOR) Board of Appeal
and Equalization training. Training is good for four board years as listed on the MN DOR record.
•The board should run the meeting as a fair and impartial review of the appeals. The property
owner is the appellant and assessing staff are the respondent. The board may ask questions to
clarify facts and background. It is suggested all appeals are heard before the Board begins
deliberations on each.
•Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly valued and
classified for the current assessment year only. The board does not have the authority to reopen
prior assessments on which taxes are due and payable (taxes may not be appealed). The board
may add a property to the assessment roll if it has been omitted.
•Individual board members cannot participate in actions or discussions of appeals involving their
own property, property of relatives, or property in which they have a financial interest.
•The Local Board may not increase or decrease all assessments in a district of a given class of
property. Changes by class may be made by the County Board of Equalization.
•The Local Board may not make a market value or classification change that would benefit the
property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not
permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures.
Pandemic protocols may affect accessibility and we are not insisting on strict adherence to this
statute in 2021.
•Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or decrease
individual assessments, the total of such adjustment must not reduce the aggregate assessment
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 12, 2021 Page 3
Title: 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
by more than one percent. If the total reductions would exceed one percent, none of the
adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments
discovered by the board without regard to the one percent limitation.
•If an assessment was made after the local board meeting or if a taxpayer can establish not having
received the notice of market value at least five days before the meeting, they can appeal to the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
•The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of the
property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner must have the opportunity to
appear before the board if they so wish.
•The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues. Only the county assessor
(and the tax court) has the authority to exempt property. They also have no jurisdiction over
special programs for which an application process is required (Veterans Exclusion, Market Value
Homestead Exclusion, Blind/Disabled, Low Income Rental Classification, Green Acres, etc.).
•A taxpayer may appear in person, by council, or written communication to present his or her
objection to the board. The focus of the appeal should center on the factors influencing the
estimated market value or classification placed on the property. Appellants are being notified that
the Board is meeting virtually per pandemic protocols.
•All changes will be entered into the assessment record by the city and county assessor’s office.
•Before adjourning, the local board should prepare an official list of the changes. The law requires
that the changes be listed on a separate form. All assessments that have been increased or
decreased should be shown on the form along with their market values.
•Administrative Rules from the Department of Revenue (2013): The Assessor may not make
administrative changes to the valuation or classification less than 10 days prior to the Board. All
contemplated changes should be brought to the Board for review and approval. Each appeal must
be ruled on separately.
•Directive from the Department of Revenue (2015): assessing staff from Hennepin County will
attend Local Board meetings. The purpose of attendance is to assure legal compliance.
•Directive from the Department of Revenue (2017): the Board is required to hear appeals from
date of the published meeting through adjournment. A comment: It had been the practice of the St.
Louis Park Board to close the roster at the completion of the initial convene meeting date – the directive
effectively eliminates roster closure until adjourned. To comply, it is recommended that the Board decide
last moment appeals on a case -by-case basis as best possible. Action may include accepting the appeal
with no change to preserve the owner’s right to be eligible for the County Board.
•Following each board meeting, a letter is sent to the owner of each property in appeal. The
sample letter following the initial convene meeting is attached.
•At the convene meeting on April 12, the Board will be given two outlines to assist in conducting
an efficient and productive meeting. One will be the Agenda as the Board process is quite
specific in format. The other will be the Board roster which is updated at 4:30 pm.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 12, 2021 Page 4
Title: 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
SAMPLE LETTER TO ALL BOARD ROSTER PROPERTIES
Address line 1 April 13, 2021
Address line 2
Address line 3
Re : St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization
Subject Address
Property ID #: xx -xxx-xx -xx-xxxx
De ar :
The Board convened on April 12 and the above-referenced property has been entered onto the
appeal roster. You are receiving both a telephone call and this written communication to inform you
that the reconvene date has been scheduled for x:xx pm on April 26, 2021. The meeting will be a
virtual format using Webex. We will send you the log-in directions when they are available.
Appeals will be reviewed at this meeting. The following are important for you to know:
•The Board encourages assessing staff and owners to discuss the valuation questions in order to
resolve them to mutual agreement. This is an important component of the Local Board process.
If the assessing staff and you as the owner can mutually agree to resolve the matter, the
agreement will be reported to the Board. While it is common that that the Board ratifies mutual
agreement, please note that the Board is the decision maker on the issue. This method of
resolution is often preferred by property owners as it is not necessary to prepare presentation
materials or to provide testimony before the board.
•For the cases that are not resolved, the following format and process are outlined to assist you in
the next steps on how the Local Board functions.
•If your property is income producing (i.e. rental), please submit a building floorplan showing gross
and net rentable square footages, rent roll as of the assessment date, complete copy of the
executed lease(s), annual income & expense statement for the prior year and the budget
forecasted for the current year. This information will be reviewed for valuation via the Income
Approach. The information submitted will be held confidential and not released to the public.
Failure to provide the information will result in my formal request to the Board to sustain the
value due to the refusal to provide information that is highly germane to the value question.
•The Board has directed that they will review written information regarding your opinion of the
market value as of January 2, 2021 before the meeting. We strongly recommend factual
transactions (sales, rents, construction costs) that relate directly to your property. The initial
assessed market values for all property types are set using market information in the time period
just before the assessment date. This is very important in setting the assessment as the value
influences are equalized relative to the market at that point in time. The potential value
influences arising from the Covid -19 pandemic have been viewed from the perspective of the
market in setting the 2021 assessment.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of April 12, 2021 Page 5
Title: 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
• Assessing staff likewise prepares written information on each open appeal and submits it to the
Board prior to the meeting. If you would like your materials to be included in the Board packet,
please provide it to me by e -mail attachment by 12:00 Noon on Tuesday April 20 to allow time for
addition to the Board packet.
• The Board has directed that they will hear testimony virtually or telephonically during the meeting.
When agreement cannot be reached, the Board hears the case. You, as the appellant, are
allowed about 5-10 minutes to present written and verbal information on the market value. The
assessing staff, as the respondent, are allowed about 3-5 minutes to review their information and
value conclusion. The Board hears the information and decides the market value and/or
classification as of January 2, 2021.
• The Board has full authority to sustain, increase, or decrease individual assessments. The Board
does not have authority to reopen prior assessments. The Board does not have authority to
change current and past real estate taxes.
• If the Assessing staff has not already inspected your property within the last year, they must
complete an interior and exterior inspection to form the basis of a revaluation. Important:
Refusing access precludes the Board from taking action that would benefit the owner (MN statute
274.01). Pandemic protocols may affect accessibility and we are not insisting on strict adherence
to this statute for the 2021 Local Board.
• Upon completion of the Local Board, you will be notified via letter of the Board action. If you do
not agree with the Local Board decision, you are eligible to attend the Hennepin County Board of
Appeal & Equalization which convenes in June. An application to appear before the County Board
is requested by May 21, 2021.
If you have any further questions on the Local Board process, do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Assessing Office | City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Direct: 952-924-2536 | Fax: 952-924-2170
www.stlouispark.org
Experience LIFE in the Park
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
Re commended action: Discuss the annual work plan with representative(s) of parks and
recreation advisory commission (PRAC).
Policy consideration: Does the annual work plan meet the city councils’ expectations of the
and parks and recreation advisory commission?
Summary: The complete parks and recreation advisory commission work plan is attached for
review. There are seven initiatives identified for 2021. The new initiatives for 2021 are as follows:
•Review and provide feedback on the Historical Society’s master plan.
•Assist with the 40th anniversary celebration of the Westwood Hills Nature Center.
•Review and provide feedback on the Webster Park master plan.
Bruce Cantor, the 2021 PRAC chair will be present at the meeting.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: PRAC annual work plan
PRAC annual report
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, senior office assistant
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Board and Commission Annual Workplan Presented to council April 12, 2021 1 Workplan Template│ Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Time Frame Initiative Strategic Priorities Purpose (see page 2 for definitions)Outcome (fill in after completed) 1st quarter Review Historical Society’s master plan. ☒New Initiative☐ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☐ 5☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)2nd quarter Continue with the Minnehaha Creek clean‐up (April 24, 2021) ☐New Initiative☒ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility☐1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)3rd quarter Review and provide input on Webster Park master plan process. ☐New Initiative☒ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☒ 5☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)4th quarter Host annual staff appreciation luncheon ☐New Initiative☒ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☒ 5☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)2021 Westwood Hills Nature Center 40th Anniversary Celebration ☒New Initiative☐ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☒ 5☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)Monthly Invite Youth Associations and other community groups to discuss opportunities and successes monthly. ☐NewInitiative☒ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☐ 5☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan reviewPage 2
Board and Commission Annual Workplan 2 City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities 1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagementOR OtherAs needed Encourage Commissioners to volunteer at special events such as ShamROC Ice Bowling, Ugly Sweater Dash, Penny Carnival, ROCtoberfest, July 4th Fireworks, Community Link event, Concerts in the Park, etc. ☐New Initiative☒ContinuedInitiative☐OngoingResponsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3☐4 ☒ 5☐N/A☒Commission Initiated Project☐Council Initiated Project☐Report Findings (council requested)☐Formal Recommendation (councilrequested)Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan reviewPage 3
3 Purpose: definitions Modifications: Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for citycouncil approval at a council meeting.The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.• Project initiated by the board or commissionCommission Initiated Project• Project tasked to a board or commission by the city councilCouncil Initiated Project• Initiated by the city council• Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city council inwriting• No direct action is taken by the board/commissionReport Findings • Initiated by the city council• Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city council onwhat action to take• A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' supportFormal RecommandationStudy session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan reviewBoard and Commission Annual Workplan Page 4
Board and Commission Annual Workplan 4 Parking Lot Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative. Initiative Comments: Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan reviewPage 5
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Commissioners
Bruce Cantor, chair
Leah Hollingsworth, vice chair
Rich Bluma
George Foulkes
Elizabeth Griffin
George Hagemann
Dahlia Krebs
Peter May
Staff
Cindy Walsh, operations and recreation director
Rick Beane, parks superintendent
Jason West, recreation superintendent
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review Page 6
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
I.2020 Goals and Key Initiatives:
a.Westwood Hills Nature Center grand opening and ribbon cutting. The nature
centers grand opening and ribbon cutting was held on September 13, 2020.
b.Review Access to Fun (scholarship program) guidelines and provide
recommendations. The Commission met with staff to review the new Access
to Fun guidelines. Following feedback from the commission, staff introduced
the new guidelines to our customers.
c.Review the Historical Society’s master plan. Due to COVID‐19, this project
was paused and will resume review in 2021.
II.2021 Goals: The Commission’s main goals for 2021 are as follows:
a.The commission will invite the St. Louis Park Historical Society to present
their master plan, including their plans for The Depot.
b. The master plan for Webster Park will be reviewed and feedback will be
provided to staff.
c. Commission members will assist in the planning and celebration for
Westwood Hills Nature Center’s 40th Anniversary.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
Page 7
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
III.Race Equity and Inclusion:
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will incorporate and promote race
equity and inclusion by reviewing all projects and programs with a race and equity
lens.
IV.Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic
priorities?
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission places a great emphasis on
environmental stewardship. They discussed the possibility of purchasing electric
blowers and chainsaws for the maintenance crew. They were also involved in talking
through the options for the new Westwood Hills Nature Center that would work
towards the council’s goal of achieving Zero Energy. PRAC also leads the annual
Minnehaha Creek clean up event where several truckloads of garbage are removed
from the creek annually.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meets with the youth associations
and other community groups to encourage participation and encourages them to
find ways to break down barriers. They have been committed to creating
opportunities to build social capital through community engagement for many years
before it became a strategic priority.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
Page 8
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review
Recommended action: Please review the workplan and provide comments to planning
commissioners.
Policy consideration: Does the workplan list and priorities align with city goals and priorities?
Summary: The planning commission and board of zoning appeals respectfully submit th eir 2021
annual reports to city council. Included at the end of the planning commission report is the
commission’s 2021 workplan, which the chair will briefly present to city council. The workplan
will be the f ocus of the council discussion. The board of zoning appeals (BOZA) and planning
commission are separate bodies with different bylaws, responsibiliti es, and lev els o f aut hority .
The individuals serving on each are the same .
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Planning commission annual report
2021 workplan
BOZA annual report
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
St. Louis Park Planning Commission
2020 Annual Report
The St. Louis Park Planning Commission is an 8- member advisory body made up of citizen
volunteers appointed by the city council. The planning commission reviews and makes
recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments, development projects, land use
studies and zoning amendments. It also holds public hearings where the public can give
input to commission recommendations.
A new public art installation by
Craig Synder and Homan Wong at
the Bridgewater Bank project site.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 2
Commissioners
Jessica Kraft, chair
Jim Beneke
Imran Dagane
Matt Eckholm
Courtney Erwin
Tom Weber
Outgoing members
Lynette Dumalag
Claudia Johnston-Madison
Carl Robertson
Staff
Karen Barton, community development director
Meg McMonigal, principal planner
Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 3
Executive summary
The planning commission is an eight-member advisory group of citizen volunteers appointed by
the city council. The 2020 members included Jessica Kraft (chair), Jim Beneke (school
representative), Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, and Tom Weber. Outgoing
members included Lynette Dumalag, Claudia Johnston-Madison and Carl Robertson.
Commissioners pride themselves in their thoughtful consideration of applications.
Commissioners review detailed staff reports, conduct fair and civil public hearings, discuss
complex issues in study sessions and provide sound recommendations in a timely fashion.
Due to the COVID-19 global health pandemic, planning commission transitioned to meeting
remotely starting in March 2020. All study sessions, public hearings, and neighborhood meetings
for development projects were conducted by videoconference rather than meeting in person.
For several months the city and commission focused on essential business only, which resulted
in fewer study sessions. The commission continued to provide opportunities for public comment
and meet statutory deadlines for reviewing projects during this time.
2020 accomplishments
Key duties:
• Review development projects, planning studies and zoning amendments.
• Hold public hearings and make recommendations to the city council.
2020 activities:
• Racial equity & inclusion training in a joint session with the environmental and
sustainability commission (ESC).
• The commission reviewed 22 applications in 2020, including development review of the
Quentin, Union Park Flats, Bremer Bank, and the Xchange Medical Building.
• Review of code amendments related to accessory dwelling units, architectural design
requirements, painted signs, Historic Walker Lake mixed use zoning district, and
miscellaneous code amendments.
• Review of planning studies for the Historic Walker Lake district, the Wooddale Avenue
light rail station area, single family building scale and home occupations.
2021 work plan
Review development applications. Hold study sessions and hearings in order to make informed
recommendations to city council.
Long range planning activities. Review and provide input on studies.
• Transit-oriented development light rail transit station area planning updates
• Review climate action, racial equity, inclusionary housing and food security and access
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 4
Zoning code studies
• Home occupations
• Single family building scale
• Revise parking requirements
• Transit-oriented development district
• Two-family dwellings in low density residential areas
• Transitional industrial zoning district
Racial equity and inclusion
• Identify strategies to broaden participation and reduce barriers to public participation.
Review notification methods, online opportunities to submit input, and consider when
providing translation services, transportation or childcare may be warranted.
• Participate in racial equity training.
Opportunities for collaboration
If in-person commissioner training occurs in 2021, include other bodies like the environment
and sustainability commission.
Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic priorities?
Much of planning commission’s work deals with development and the built environment. The
commission primarily promotes strategic priority #3: St. Louis Park is committed to providing
a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development. Through review of
development projects and new city policies, our work also supports strategic priorities #1: St.
Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a
more just and inclusive community for all; and #5: St. Louis Park is committed to creating
opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 5
Applications Reviewed in 2020
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2 1 1 1
7
1 1 2 2 3
5 8
1
6 7
6
7
9 7
15
3
5
4 4
4
2
10
1
5
8
6
5
3
2
2
1
1
4 2 2
1
2
1
1
6
3
6
5
1
6
4
3
1
2
4
2
3
3
3 1
2
2
11
1
2
4
2
6
3
6
5
6
2
6
9
5
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Conditional Use Permits Planned Unit Developments
Rezoning Subdivisions/Plats Variances
Zoning Code Amendments
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 6
Updated December 2020
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 7
Proposed developments
Beltline Boulevard Station Site
Location: 4601 and 4725 Hwy. 7 and 3130 Monterey Ave. S.
Description: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA)
continues to work with Sherman Development Associates LLC to
pursue development of a mixed-use, transit-oriented development at
the Green Line Extension / Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT)
Beltline Boulevard Station site.
Developer: Sherman Development Associates LLC
Texa-Tonka Apartments
Location: 7916 Minnetonka Blvd. and 2939-2901 Texas Ave.
Description: Paster Properties submitted land use applications for a
proposed redevelopment, Texa-Tonka Apartments, on the northeast
corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard. The proposal
includes a 101-unit, four to five-story multifamily building on the corner
of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard, and an 11-unit, two-story
town home building on the northern half of the site. The apartment
building includes amenity spaces, underground parking and enclosed
parking at the first floor and surface parking on-site with other site
amenities. Both buildings provide walk up units for future residents.
The development also helps connect the neighborhood to the Texa-
Tonka shopping center and surrounding amenities like Rainbow Park
and Cedar Lake Trail with a public trail connection through the site. The
development will include 20 percent of the units as affordable at 50
percent area median income.
Planning commission will hold a public hearing and make
recommendations on the applications in January 2021.
Developer: Paster Properties
SLP Living (formerly Platia Place)
Location: 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd.
Description: This project, now called SLP Living (previously Platia Place),
includes a seven-story, 233-unit apartment building. Twenty percent of
units will be affordable at 50 percent area median income (AMI). The
project will comply with the city's inclusionary housing and green
building policies. The building includes a level of structured parking, a
second story amenity deck and an indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge.
Planning commission will hold a public hearing and make
recommendations on the applications in January 2021.
Developer: Mortenson Development
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 8
Approved developments
Parkway Residences
Location: West 31st Street between Inglewood Ave. & Glenhurst Ave.
Description Sela Investments received approvals for Parkway
Residences, located along West 31st Street near Glenhurst Avenue
South. The development includes four new multifamily buildings
with 223 units, as well as the rehabilitation of three existing
apartment buildings that contain 24 units, creating a total of 247
residential units. The development will include the removal of 12
existing buildings
Construction began on Parkway Place in 2020, which is expected to
be open fall 2021. Construction for Parkway Flats is anticipated to
begin in spring 2021.
Developer: Sela Investments
The Quentin
Location: 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and
5005 Old Cedar Lake Road
Description: The Quentin is a 5 story, 79-unit apartment building
that includes two levels of structured parking. The site will feature a
new pedestrian trail connection from Cedar Lake Road along
Quentin and a bicycle hub for residents. The site is served by multiple
bus lines and is situated on the Cedar Lake Trail. The project features
several sustainability features including a green roof on the east side
of the parking pedestal; landscaping with no-mow, native plants, and
drought/salt-tolerant landscaping; electric vehicle charging stations
for residents and guests; and a solar array on the roof to offset
common area electricity.
Construction began summer 2020 and will be complete summer
2021.
Developer: Patrick Crowe, Crowe Companies LLC
Union Park Flats
Location: 3700 Alabama Avenue
Description: Project for Pride in Living (PPL) has approval to
construct a three story, 60-unit affordable apartment building on a
portion of 3700 Alabama Avenue, the site currently owned and
operated by Union Congregational Church. The site is three blocks
from the Wooddale Light Rail Transit Station, which is currently
under construction and will be completed in 2023. Union Church will
sell a portion of their property to an affiliate of PPL; PPL will own and
manage this new housing for the long term. The church will use the
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 9
proceeds from the land sale to renovate the existing sanctuary and
narthex to preserve the 1940s church building while making it more
welcoming and accommodating.
Construction is anticipated to begin fall 2022.
Developer: Project for Pride in Living
Xchange Medical Office
Location: 3700 Alabama Avenue
Description: The Davis Group received approvals to construct a
77,500-square-foot medical office building near 6009 Wayzata Blvd.
The development includes one level of underground parking with 51
parking spaces and three levels of medical office space above. The
building is oriented towards Wayzata Boulevard to the north with
the building's main entrance and a 253-space surface parking lot on
the south side of the building.
Construction began fall 2020.
Developer: The Davis Group
Luxe Residential
Location: 5235 Wayzata Blvd.
Description: DLC Residential has received city approval for a planned
unit development (PUD) for a new six-story apartment building in
the West End, at the current Olive Garden site. The project will
include 207 units ranging in size from studio to three-bedrooms and
two levels of underground parking. The site will also include a new
pocket park along 16th Street and pedestrian improvements
connecting the apartment to the rest of the West End.
Construction anticipated to begin spring 2021.
Developer: Robinson Zamorano, Luxe Residential
Via
Location: SE quadrant of Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave
Description: PLACE, a non-profit developer, is constructing a mixed-
use, mixed-income transit-oriented redevelopment at the
southeast quadrant of Highway 7 & Wooddale Ave called Via. The
plans include 217 apartment units, a bike shop, a makers’ space, e-
generation and greenhouse and approximately 1-acre urban forest.
The proposed development incorporates a mix of renewable energy
sources, including an anaerobic digester, a wind turbine and solar
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 10
panels, which will provide 90% of the heat and power for the
development. The entire development is designed to achieve LEED
certification.
Demolition of the former McGarvey building was complete in
November 2017. Construction began in 2020 and will be complete
in summer 2021.
Developer: PLACE
The Elmwood
Location: 5605 W 36th St
Description: 36th Street LLC, the owner of the 36th Street Business
Center/American Legion at 5606 W. 36th Street, has approved plans
for a 5 story, 70-unit mixed-use development called The Elmwood.
The building will be marketed toward residents aged 55+ who lead
active lifestyles. The development will be located on a 1-acre parcel
at the southeast corner of Xenwood Avenue and 36th Street West.
The Elmwood consists of market rate and affordable apartments,
and approximately 4,400 square feet of leasable office/commercial
space. The development includes on-street, surface, and
underground parking and 1/4 acre of outdoor amenity space.
The building is expected to open February 2021.
Developer: 36th Street LLC
10 West End
Location: 1601 Utica Avenue S
Description: The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies have
approved plans for an 11-story, 335,710 square feet Class A office
building within The West End area. The building is Phase IV of the
Central Park West and will include the building and one half of a
planned parking structure, providing 1,200 stalls.
Key features include approximately 5,000 square feet of shared
outdoor amenity space, 3,500 square feet of covered retail at ground
level, a fitness facility, public locker rooms, and an indoor bike room
that can be accessed from the linear civic space. The design of the
building incorporates mostly Class I materials and provides a modern
take on the durability of a brick warehouse building.
Construction will be complete February 2021.
Developer: The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 11
Arlington Row East and West
Location: Intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue
Description: Melrose Company received approval to develop two
properties near the 7700 block of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas
Avenue. The west parcel will be developed into two three-story
apartment buildings with 34 units and off-street parking covered by
a solar power carport. The east parcel will be developed into a three-
story apartment building with 27 units and surface parking to the
north.
Developer: Melrose Company
Completed projects
Bridgewater Bank
Location: 4424 and 4400 Excelsior Blvd. & 3743 Monterey Drive
Description: Bridgewater Bank has approvals to construct a four-
story, 84,000-square-foot office building with a 7,000-square-foot
bank branch, 7,000 square feet of retail and service space and three
levels of structured parking. The first floor includes Bridgewater
Bank's customer branch and retail space. The second, third and
fourth floors include the bank's executive offices and opportunities
for co-working entrepreneurial space. There is a plaza at the corner
of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive with outdoor seating,
space for public art and landscaping.
Construction of the building finished in summer 2020 and interior
buildouts continued in fall 2020 for building tenants, including a new
restaurant.
Westwood Hills Nature Center
Location: 8300 W. Franklin Ave.
Description: In the late 1950s, the city had the foresight to acquire
160 acres of open space that is now the much-treasured Westwood
Hills Nature Center, located south of I-394 and east of Highway 169
just minutes from downtown. The center allows visitors of all ages
and backgrounds to learn about and connect with nature through a
variety of programming.
However, the aging interpretive center no longer meets the needs
of visitors. Programming, staff operations and public needs have
outgrown its small spaces, and it’s difficult for more than one
programming activity to take place at any one time. The remote
location of the interpretive center – removed from the parking lot
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 12
and at the top an uphill walk – presents challenges to visitors with
disabilities, parents with small children and others. Providing more
space and making the center accessible to the parking lot will allow
a wider audience to enjoy the nature center for a variety of activities
from passive to active.
The existence of the nature center, as well as construction of a new
interpretive center, allows the city to showcase its leadership in
environmental stewardship. The proposed project will connect
people to nature through the site and building design, while also
exhibiting innovative energy-saving measures in the city’s first net-
zero energy building! This amenity provides a teaching tool for
residents as well as providing long-term maintenance savings to the
city.
The new interpretive center opened for visitors in summer 2020.
Urban Park Apartments
Location: 3601 Phillips Pkwy.
Description: The city council approved an application for
construction of a second apartment building at Urban Park
Apartments. The new building has 61 market rate apartments, two
community rooms and a fitness center. The site also includes a pool
and improved outdoor amenity space as part of the project.
Construction started in spring 2019 and residents began moving into
the new building in the fall of 2020.
Developer: North Shore Development Partners
Elan West End
Location: Utica Avenue S
Description: Elan West End is phase II of Central Park West End. Plans
were approved for the construction of a six-story apartment building
with 164 residential units. The building is adjacent to Central Park
West and the AC Hotel by Marriott. The development includes five
affordable units at 60 percent area median income (AMI).
Developer: Greystar Real Estate Partners
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 13
Zoning code amendments
Mixed-Use 2 District (MX-2: Neighborhood Mixed-Use)
The Historic Walker Lake commercial district in St. Louis Park is in the middle of a renaissance
with both private and public reinvestment occurring. The city adopted the Historic Walker Lake
Revitalization Plan in January 2020. One of the plan’s key recommendations is to create a new
zoning district specific to the HWL area with a supplemental design guideline document. Based
on this revitalization plan, staff and the planning commission drafted changes to the zoning
ordinance including a new zoning district, Mixed-Use 2 District (MX-2, neighborhood mixed-use),
that addresses building form and uses, and a separate design guideline document to provide
guidance on the desired character and appearance of future infill development and reinvestment
within the Historic Walker Lake district.
The planning commission held a public hearing on October 21, 2020 and recommended approval
of several amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the future land use map, the zoning
code and the zoning map to implement the changes recommended in the Historic Walker Lake
Revitalization plan.
Accessory dwelling units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a self-contained residential unit with its own living room,
kitchen, and bathroom. ADUs are permanent installations that are legally part of a larger property
that includes a standard single-family house. This housing is designed to be flexible and can
generate rental income for the homeowners. ADUs have the potential to meet some of St. Louis
Park’s housing goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, as well as help fulfill the following
city council strategic priority: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing
and neighborhood-oriented development.
Beginning in 2019, planning commissioners discussed policy questions and potential zoning
ordinance changes around ADUs. Topics included the size and number of ADUs allowed per lot,
the type of ADU allowed, setbacks, building height, parking, design components, the type of
approval that would be required, and other issues. Staff and commissioners further refined the
proposed ADU ordinance in three study sessions in 2020, and the planning commission
recommended adoption of the ADU ordinance on September 16, 2020.
Home occupations
Narrowly focused changes to the home occupation regulations were adopted on July 17, 2019.
During that effort, planning commission discussed additional policy issues that were beyond the
initial limited scope. Planning commission and city council supported the more limited ordinance
and wanted to explore further changes in 2020.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 14
In November 2020 staff and planning commission discussed a number of changes to regulations
around home occupations. These changes include removing barbers/hairdressers from the
prohibited uses list; allowing one outside employee to work at the property; allowing home
occupations to be conducted in accessory buildings and to occupy more than 10% of the home.
In addition, staff proposed moving the home occupation regulations from each of the residential
zoning districts to a new subsection in the general residential district regulations section of the
zoning ordinance.
The proposed zoning amendment will be submitted to the council as a study session written
report on January 11, 2021. If the council does not wish to discuss it at a future study session
meeting, then staff will begin the formal process to adapt changes begins in 2021.
Architectural design
Section 36-366 of the city code regulates architectural design of buildings in St. Louis Park. The
purpose of the architectural design standards is to serve the public interest by promoting a high
standard of development in the city. The planning commission work plan includes a review and
modification of the list of exterior materials approved for use in the St. Louis Park. The
commission recommended approval of an ordinance amendment to include additional materials
as class 1 and provide clarification on other materials on September 16, 2020.
Painted signs
Section 36-362 of the city code regulates signs in St. Louis Park. The purpose of the sign code is
to establish standards for the size, placement and maintenance of signs. The sign regulations are
intended to permit a safe, efficient, effective and aesthetic means of communication using signs
which recognizes the need to maintain an attractive and appealing appearance of property and
community. Previously this section of the code prohibited signs from being directly painted onto
a building. Per city council’s direction, staff prepared a zoning code amendment to allow signs to
be painted directly to buildings and added provisions requiring the signs be maintained in good
repair and removed entirely when the sign is no longer used. Planning commission recommended
approval of the amendment on September 16, 2020.
Single-family building scale related to affordable housing
In 2018, a request was submitted by city council members to review the housing regulations to
prevent lower-value homes from being torn down or added on to for the construction of higher-
value homes. Based on this request, staff researched the history of the low-density residential
zoning requirements, and evaluated the scale of housing relative to lot sizes (i.e. ground floor
area ratio and floor area ratio). On November 4, 2020 staff presented a report of these findings
to planning commission.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 15
Staff will be presenting the report findings to city council in early 2021, and this item may return
to the commission for additional discussion before a formal process to adapt changes begins in
2021.
Miscellaneous amendments
Periodically staff proposes an ordinance to amend various sections of the zoning code for the
purpose of making changes that are consistent with current policy, correcting errors and making
clarifications. Staff presented these items to the planning commission in study sessions on
November 4 and November 18, 2020, and planning commission recommended approval of all
amendments on December 2, 2020.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 16
Appendix A: Full List of 2020 Applications
Zoning code amendment – accessory dwelling units
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 19-15-ZA
Comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, planned unit development –
Cedar Place (The Quentin)
Applicant: Crowe Companies LLC
Case No.: 19-36-CP, 19-37-PUD, 19-38-S
Preliminary and final plat, variance – Cedarwood Dachis Addition
Applicant: Toni Dachis
Case No.: 19-39-S, 19-40-VAR
Comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, planned unit development –
Union Park Flats
Applicant: Project for Pride in Living
Case No.: 20-03-CP, 20-04-S, 20-05-PUD
Conditional use permit – Bremer Bank
Applicant: Frauenshuh, Inc.
Case No.: 20-07-CUP
Preliminary and final plat, conditional use permit, variance – Xchange Medical Office
Applicant: The Davis Group
Case No.: 20-09-S, 20-10-VAR, 20-11-CUP
Conditional Use Permit – 2400 Edgewood Avenue South
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 20-13-CUP
Zoning code amendment – architectural design
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 20-17-ZA
Zoning code amendment – painted signs
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 20-18-ZA
Comprehensive plan amendment, zoning code amendment – Historic Walker Lake
Applicant: City of St. Louis park
Case No.: 20-19-CP, 20-20-ZA
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 17
Special permit amendment – Nordic Ware
Applicant: Dalquist Properties LLC
Case No.: 20-23-SP
Conditional use permit – Pennsylvania Park Apartments
Applicant: Waypoint Development LLC
Case No.: 20-24-CUP
Zoning code amendment – miscellaneous zoning amendments
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 20-29-ZA
Study Session Reports and Discussions
• Historic Walker Lake zoning district
• Accessory dwelling units
• Home occupations zoning ordinance
• Racial equity and inclusion (joint session with Environment & Sustainability Commission)
• Wooddale Avenue light rail transit station area planning
• 2020 work plan revisited
• Architectural design zoning code text amendment
• Painted signs zoning code text amendment
• Single-family building scale related to affordable housing
• Miscellaneous zoning amendments
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 18
Appendix B: 2021 Workplan
Time
Frame
Initiative Strategic
Priorities
Purpose
(see last page for definitions)
Ongoing Identify strategies to broaden
participation and reduce barriers to
public participation. Review notification
methods, online opportunities to submit
input and consider when providing
translation services, transportation or
child care may be warranted.
☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☒Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐4 ☒ 5
☐N/A
☐Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)
☒Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Ongoing Review development applications; hold
study sessions and hearings in order to
make informed recommendations to city
council.
☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☒Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐4 ☒ 5
☐N/A
☐Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)
☒Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q1-Q2 Single family building scale ☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐Commission Initiated Project
☒Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)
☒Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q1 Home occupation zoning requirements
and work toward formal adoption
☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐Commission Initiated Project
☒Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)
☒Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q2-Q4 Transit Oriented Development District ☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3
☒4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council requested)
☒Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 19
Q2-Q3 Allow for two-family dwelling units
(twin homes and duplexes) on
appropriately sized lots in low
density residential areas.
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐ Ongoing
Responsibility
☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐ Commission Initiated Project
☒ Council Initiated Project
☐ Report Findings (council requested)
☒ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q2 Revisions to parking requirements in
zoning code
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐ Ongoing
Responsibility
☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☒ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐ Commission Initiated Project
☐ Council Initiated Project
☐ Report Findings (council requested)
☐ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q3-Q4 Identify needed updates to station area
plans and next implementation steps
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐ Ongoing
Responsibility
☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐ Commission Initiated Project
☐ Council Initiated Project
☐ Report Findings (council requested)
☐ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q3-Q4 Food security and access study ☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐ Ongoing
Responsibility
☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐ Commission Initiated Project
☒ Council Initiated Project
☒ Report Findings (council requested)
☐ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q3-Q4 Hold planning commission meetings at
off-site locations to foster community
relationships (high school, HACER, etc.).
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☒ Ongoing
Responsibility
☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐ 4 ☒ 5
☐N/A
☒ Commission Initiated Project
☐ Council Initiated Project
☐ Report Findings (council requested)
☐ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q3-Q4 Racial equity training. Possibly joint
training with other boards and
commissions like ESC and police advisory
commission.
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐ Ongoing
Responsibility
☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☐ Commission Initiated Project
☐ Council Initiated Project
☐ Report Findings (council requested)
☒ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Q4 Transitional industrial zoning district and
work toward formal adoption
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐ Ongoing
Responsibility
☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3
☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☒ Commission Initiated Project
☐ Council Initiated Project
☐ Report Findings (council requested)
☒ Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 20
Parking Lot
Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the
board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative.
City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities
1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
2. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
3. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.
4. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
5. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
OR Other
Initiative Comments:
Water conservation and
water recycling
Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground
water resources.
Housing analysis Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on present inventory and
unmet demand, and for the ratio of owned vs. rental housing units.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 21
Purpose: definitions
Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
•Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
•If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city
council approval at a council meeting.
•The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
•Project initiated by the board or commission
Commission Initiated Project
•Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council
Council Initiated Project
•Initiated by the city council
•Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city
council in writing
•No direct action is taken by the board/commission
Report Findings
•Initiated by the city council
•Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city
council on what action to take
•A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' support
Formal Recommandation
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 22
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals
Commissioners
Jessica Kraft, chair
Jim Beneke
Imran Dagane
Matt Eckholm
Courtney Erwin
Tom Weber
Outgoing members
Lynette Dumalag
Claudia Johnston-Madison
Carl Robertson
Staff
Karen Barton, community development director
Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 23
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals
I. 2020 Goals and Key Initiatives: The (BOZA) is a seven-member board that makes
final decisions on the following:
1.Variances to the regulations of the zoning ordinance.
2.Appeals from any order, decision, or interpretation of the text of the zoning
ordinance made by staff.
The BOZA may also act in an advisory capacity on matters referred to it by the city
council.
Section VI provides a summary of the BOZA actions resulting from applications
received in 2020.
II. 2021 Goals: The BOZA strives to maintain the following goals each year as it hears
variances and appeals to staff interpretations decisions:
a. Goal 1 - Insure that BOZA procedures and structure best facilitate the
expeditious and fair resolution to disputes.
b.Goal 2 - Use cutting edge technology to increase citizens' access to the BOZA and
the BOZA's ability to reach sound decisions through the best available access to
factual and legal information.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 24
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals
III.Race Equity and Inclusion: The BOZA will incorporate and promote race equity and
inclusion in the key initiatives/activities identified in above by ensuring equal
application of the judicial process to all cases, which are fairly decided based upon
legally relevant factors. The BOZA will also be sensitive and responsive to the needs
of a diverse community. The BOZA will also participate in racial equity training.
IV.Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic
priorities?
The BOZA’s work supports the strategic priorities.
1.Receiving input from neighbors or others impacted by applications is important
for the BOZA. The BOZA also acknowledges that not all persons are comfortable
speaking in a public forum, especially when it is in opposition to a neighbor’s
application. Therefore, the BOZA welcomes many forms of communication
including speaking before the BOZA, submitting written communication with or
without the author present at the meeting, or accepting a proxy authorized to
speak for them.
2.The BOZA conducts hearings in a manner that is respectful to all in attendance.
This includes managing the process and dialogue with neighbors that may be in
opposition over a particular application with the goal that they will be able to continue
to live as neighbors and friends, or at least with respect for one another after the
process is completed.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 25
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals
V.Variance Applications Received Since 2011: The following table details the type
and amount of variance applications received and reviewed by the BOZA since
2011.
‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19
RESIDENTIAL
Attached Garages:
Interior side setback: 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Rear setback: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Side yard abutting the street setback: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detached Garages:
Maximum Ground Floor Area: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Front yard of a through lot: 1
Living Space:
Front setback: 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Interior side setback: 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Side abutting the street setback: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous:
Deck-Interior side yard: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open covered porch – front yard: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fence height – front yard: 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Eave – interior side yard: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Residential Variances: 2 3 2 1 4 1 2 1 1
COMMERCIAL
Front setback: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
setback: 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0
Front yard setback for a sign: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Increase total sign area: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Drive aisle width: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Floor area ratio: 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
Number of required parking spaces: 1 3 1
Screening wall: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Total Commercial Variances: 0 4 1 1 1 3 5 1
Total Variances: 2 7 3 2 5 4 7 2 1
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 26
2021 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals
Date: October 7, 2020
Variance: Fence height
Location: 1454 Texas Circle
Applicant: Jeb A. Myers
St. Louis Park resident, Jeb A. Myers, requested a variance to allow a fence in the front yard
to be six feet tall instead of the four-foot maximum allowed by code. The property is a corner
lot, and the house faces the side yard abutting a street, not the front lot line like most houses
do. The ordinance, however, identifies the front yard as the shorter of the two property lines
adjacent to the streets as the front lot line, and therefore, the front yard.
As illustrated, the house
faces the side lot line
adjacent to the street.
Highlighted is the requested
six-foot fence proposed to be
located in the front yard.
The BOZA tabled
consideration of the
application to the October
21, 2020 meeting so that
staff could work with the
applicant to find a solution.
Staff reported back that the
applicant withdrew the
application with the understanding that the city would research and consider an amendment
to the ordinance that may allow a six foot tall fence to be located on the side of the house
when the side faces the front lot line.
Staff prepared an amendment to the ordinance and presented it to the planning commission
on March 17, 2021 in study session. The planning commission approved the direction staff
was proceeding and recommended beginning the adoption process.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 27
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Discussion item : 3
Executive summary
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide research and
background information on the current zoning regulations related to housing and request
further direction from the city council.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to revis e the zoning code to limit the scale of additions
and new construction? This topic is eighth on the council’s list of priority discussion topics.
Summary: In 2018 city council members Rog and Miller initiated a discussion about reviewing
housing regulations to limit the size of new houses and additions as a way of keeping affordable
homes from being replaced with large and less affordable homes. The request stated:
“In 2006 the city council authorized changes to zoning. These changes were in response to the
move -up in the park initiative which was designed to encourage families to stay in St. Louis
Park, including the St. Louis Park school system, by accommodating modest additions to their
homes instead of seeking a larger home outside the city.”
Today’s housing market in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is seeing a rapid increase
in the price of single -family housing. St. Louis Park is no exception. While there are many
factors that influence the housing market values, this report focuses on the concern that single -
family homes are becoming less affordable as builders and private owners add on to their
homes or tear down older, smaller homes and build larger ones.
The city council at their meeting on July 9, 2018 agreed to consider the matter further and
referred the matter to the planning commission. Staff conducted research and presented that
information to city council in a written report on October 26, 2020 and to the planning
commission on November 4, 2020. The planning commission discussed the issue at that study
session and identified potential amendments to pursue. The commissioners’ discussion is
summarized in the report and a copy of the council and planning commission minutes are
attached. Staff and commissioners agreed that council input on the matter would be
appropriate before beginning any formal process. The commission’s discussion is summarized
in the report and meeting minutes are attached.
Next step: Staff and planning commission request direction from the council.
Financial or budget considerations: Not at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion; July 9, 2018 city council minutes ; Excerpt of Nov. 4, 2020
planning commission minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
Discussion
Background: The city council discussed this topic in study session on July 9, 2018. In summary,
there was consensus on the following points. Staff shared these points with the planning
commission on November 4, 2020.
1.Multiple -family and single -family housing is becoming less affordable . While the city
council expressed concerned about the affordability of both multiple -family and single -
family housing, the focus of the meeting was on the zoning regulations pertaining to the
size of single -family houses.
2.The city council continues to support the move -up in the park programs and providing
flexibility for additions that help accommodate changing family housing
needs/expectations. Nevertheless, some city council members expressed concerns
about the scale of additions and new construction. Specifically, the impacts larger
houses may have on adjacent properties.
3.The city should not regulate aesthetics of single -family houses . The city should focus on
the scale and affordability of single -family ho uses and avoid regulations that encourage
or require specific aesthetic elements.
4.Some councilmembers raised questions about the impacts housing is having on the
climate action plan and energy efficiency goals .
Present considerations: The zoning ordinance regulations for single family houses has
remained relatively constant since the first ordinance’s adoption in 1932. Two changes made
over time worth noting include the changes to the ground floor area ratio (GFAR) and
elimination of the floor area ratio (FAR).
G FAR is defined by code as the lot area covered by a building measured from the exterior faces
of exterior walls but excluding decks and terraces and detached garages which do not exceed
15 feet in height. (Please note: The GFAR reported later in this report includes only the principal
buildings. Staff was unable to include detached accessory buildings taller than 15 feet.)
FAR is defined by code as the numerical value obtained by dividing the total floor area of
buildings, excluding the basement, by the lot area on which such buildings are located.
Staff’s analysis of both GFAR and FAR is attached to the report and summarized below.
G FAR and FAR analysis: Staff found that the majority of lots with higher GFAR and FAR were
constructed during the city’s largest period of growth, in the 1940s to 1960s. Additionally, high
GFAR and FAR is predominantly found on lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size
required by code today.
The GFAR and FAR maps show that the GFAR and FAR vary widely throughout the city. The
construction data also show that there are no clear patterns that newer homes have
substantially higher GFAR and FAR than homes built between the 1940s and 1960s.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
Additional observations. Striking a balance between the goals of the move -up in the park
initiative and size of housing is complicated when also trying to provide flexibility and meeting
the expectations and desires of homebuyers in today’s market. Additionally, evaluating the
actual and perceived impacts of additions and new construction is difficult.
Staff reviewed several recently built houses that have generated some complaints and/or are
larger in size, GFAR or FAR. Staff noted some common characteristics :
•The size of the original house was particularly small.
•They added upper floors to the original house.
•They had steeper roof pitches than the original house.
•The houses are different architectural styles than the original house.
•The first-floor elevation and surrounding grade was higher than the original house.
•The floor to ceiling heights are taller in the newer houses.
The relative change in size from the old house to the new house was one explanation for a few
of the houses that generated complaints. The two following examples illustrate the results of
two houses that were replaced with new houses. Both represent a significant change, however,
both new homes are similar in style and size to other houses found on the same neighborhood
and block , and in the city .
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3 ) Page 4
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
BEFORE AFTER
Staff presented research on several approaches and rules changes that have been considered
or employed by other cities attempting to limit impacts that seemed connected to staff’s
observations above. These were presented to the planning commission for discussion, but
those approaches were not necessarily advocated by city staff.
Planning commission discussion: Commissioners asked several questions about the size of new
construction and building additions constructed over the past few years. They expressed
concerns about impacts on neighboring houses pertaining to shading and drainage. They also
discussed the challenge of keeping housing affordable and encouraging additions that
encourage residents to stay in St. Louis Park to raise their families and meet change needs and
market demand.
The commissioners discussed how the elevation of the first floor is sometimes raised for new
construction. Raising the first -floor elevation has advantages in making the basement living
space more appealing and useable , including for adding bedrooms or accessory dwelling units .
They also acknowledge that raising the first-floor elevation can result in a house that sits taller
than its neighbors and others in the neighborhood. It also adds the possibility of drainage issues
with the neighbors when the grade is raised around the house to match the higher first-floor
elevation. The commissioners discussed limiting changes to t he first-floor elevation to no more
than one foot above the current grade as a reasonable limitation. It would allow some flexibility
to make a basement more appealing for livable space, including ADUs, while also minimizing
the impact on the neighbors.
Before After
Before After
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
The commissioners did not see a need to address impacts of adding a second story to a house
or replacing a single -story house with a two-story h ouse.
Other topics such as greater setbacks, including additional setbacks on second floors, and
reducing ground floor area ratio (GFAR) were discussed.
The commissioners noted that a greater setback for the second story adds additional cost to a
home and provides minimal benefit. They are not recommending pursuing that option.
Commissioners expressed concerns that focusing on the impact larger structures have on
neighbors may result in limiting the ability to construct move-up in the park housing, ADUs and
potentially duplexes. ADUs and duplexes are a potential means for providing affordable housing
options and should not be discouraged. As a result, the commissioners did not recommend
pursuing changes to the GFAR or setbacks at this time . The commissioners would , however, like
the city to consider a regulation establishing a maximum increase to the first -floor elevation.
Next Steps. Staff requests direction from the council on next steps.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 4, 2020 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
M EMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane (arrived 6:25 p.m.), Matt Eckholm,
Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber (arrived 6:30 p.m.)
M EMBERS ABSENT: Courtney Erwin
STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Mara Hynek
STUDY SESSION
The study session commenced at 6:25 p.m.
1.S ingle -family building scale related to affordable housing
Mr. Morrison presented the report. He noted the council is looking for planning
commission feedback. He stated council is concerned about scale of housing,
affordability, impact on neighbors, neighborhood character, supporting move -up in the
park, however they do not want to regulate style of design, such as architectural style,
windows style/quality, etc. of single -family houses.
Chair Kraft asked where the two examples fall related to the ground floor ratio. Mr.
Morrison presented one specific block that staff identified that included buildings
adjace nt to one another with low, middle and high ground floor ratio. He stated on this
block that most lots are the same size, but floor area ratios of the buildings are very
different. He noted there is much variation on floor ratios within the city and showed
various examples of this.
Commissioner Beneke asked about ground-floor elevation and what the current
standard is now. Mr. Morrison explained and stated some cities set rules on this but St.
Louis Park does not have a standard currently.
Commissioner Eckholm asked if the roof height issue might be looked at with
compromises in mind and that adjusts based on the first -floor elevation and floor to
ceiling heights. Mr. Morrison stated houses do have a maximum height allowed in St.
Louis Park and depending on how a main floor might be raised, the grade might not be
changed, or it may, thereby affecting the overall height. He added there are various
ways this can be worded.
Commissioner Beneke asked about adding an egress window and what options are
available for that. He asked if that might be a motivation for raising the grade or first-
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3 ) Page 7
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
floor elevation. Mr. Morrison stated that most do not raise a house height to add an
egress window, they usually excavate to provide a window well.
Commissioner Weber asked if staff discussed whether raising first-floor elevations or
impacts of that change relates to climate change and more rain or flash floods. Mr.
Morrison stated staff is sensitive to impacts upon the water table and drainage patterns.
Mr. Walther added staff has done a lot of modeling on this as well as part of the
comprehensive plan and surface water management to reflect the latest rainfall data.
Chair Kraft asked if there is any thought of changing setbacks. She asked if there was a
limit on the number of permits that can be issued and added that kind of approach
seems not to encourage the Move Up in the Park program. She wondered how this
might encourage limitations.
Mr. Walther stated staff could look at this.
Commissioner Beneke asked if ADU’s in the basement might be looking to increase
ceiling heights and recognized this might affect the affordability of the home and ADU.
Mr. Morrison confirmed that ADUs could be located in the basement and increasing the
ceiling height would add cost but would also make them more desirable.
Commissioner Eckholm asked about ADU’s or duplexes and if folks want to build huge
homes, people should also be able to build larger buildings to be used for duplexes or
ADUs. He added this is one strategy to include climate considerations and affordable
housing.
Mr. Walther stated that the comprehensive plan housing strategies does say the city will
explore allowing duplexes in low density residential areas on appropriate -sized
properties. He anticipates this will be in the commission’s 2021 work plan.
Commissioner Weber agreed with Commission Eckholm’s statements.
Mr. Morrison addressed Chair Kraft’s comments on heights and setbacks. He stated of
the city’s current side setbacks, many existing homes already don’t meet the
requirements for various reasons. A change to the setbacks would not have much
impact to change the current house locations, as existing houses can remain in their
current location and would become non-conforming. It is only when a house is
completely torn down and a new house is built that it is required to meet side setbacks.
He also explained the city’s current rules regarding the side yard setbacks for longer
walls. He explained that the side walls of a house up to 40 feet in length can be placed at
the minimum setback. If a house is longer, the side yard increases two inches for every
foot the side of the house exceeds 40 feet in length. The code already includes some
dynamic yard requirements to avoid long, flat side wall elevations.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 3 ) Page 8
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
Mr. Walther added the city has about 10-15 teardowns per year vs Edina which has
150+ each year. He added this is a relatively small number compared to other cities and
compared to the approximately 15,000 single family houses in the city.
Mr. Walther referred to the staff report and added that Edina had an upper story side
yard setback requirement but eventually they eliminated it as it was difficult to
administer and it added significant costs to projects because it required changing the
location of load-bearing walls or installing beams to support the upper wall.
Commissioner Weber noted the tear downs in Edina and asked if St. Louis Park has any
policy to discourage tear downs. Mr. Walther stated the city has no stated policy that
discourages tear downs. Some practices are in place that may indicate that because we
require notifications to neighbors and neighborhood meetings before the city issues a
building permit. Also, our incentive programs do not fund tear downs.
Mr. Walther stated we want to encourage residents to build and stay here in St. Louis
Park and provide housing for families. Staff’s understanding of this discussion is not to
get into the detailed style and look of houses but rather focus on mass and scale and
how that might affect housing affordability, as well. Many of the city housing programs
are tailored to help low and medium-income homeowners. He asked if the commission
has further recommendations for staff to explore in more depth that might better touch
on these aspects.
Commissioner Eckholm asked about maximum ground-floor elevation is one to look
further into as well as the side yard setback adjustments. He added he is not offended
by larger homes and encouraged promoting expansions vs. teardowns.
Commissioner Beneke asked if there is a case where a larger built home might shade a
home next door. Mr. Morrison stated the homes in St. Louis Park are less than 10 feet
apart so shading neighboring homes is common. He added this is partially the intent
with the larger setbacks for long side walls. Mr. Walther added that it would be
impossible to prohibit shadowing of neighboring houses with them being built in such
close proximity and especially on north -south streets and blocks.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Discussion item : 4
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the special study
session on April 19 and the regularly scheduled study session on April 26, 2021.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session on April 19
and the regularly scheduled study session on April 26, 2021. Also attached to this report is the
study session discussion topics and timeline
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – April 19 and 26, 2021
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano , interim administrative services officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
APRIL 19, 2021.
Immediately following EDA/city council meeting
Special study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.Governmental accounting overview – Administrative services (90 minutes)
Staff will present information on fund accounting, how it works, and the big picture of how
St. Louis Park accounting functions as a system. This will help build a base for our 2022
budget process which is right around the corner.
2.Connect the park policy discussion – Engineering (60 minutes)
Staff will share criteria used to evaluate the feasibility and impacts of proposed sidewalk and
bikeway segments identified in the Connect the Park plan.
APRIL 26, 2021.
6:30 p.m. Reconvene Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE)
To be held via videoconference
Study session
Written reports only
1.March 2021 monthly financial report
2.First quarter investment report (Jan- March 2021)
3.SWLRT PLACES art temporary installment locations
4.SLP Living TIF application
5.Redistricting update
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Future council items
Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline for council
discussion
1 Council meetings – agenda and
video presentation TBD
2 Inclusionary housing policy –
requiring family size units 5/10/21
3 Public process expectations and
outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for
undertaking this discussion. 2nd qtr. 2021
4
Creating pathways to home
ownership for BIPOC individuals
and families
Discussed at 2/8/21 council meeting.
Program being developed. In process
5 Community and neighborhood
sidewalk designations
To be combined w/ Connect the Park
discussion. 3rd qtr. 2021
6 Transportation commission TBD
7
Easy access to nature, across city,
starting w/ low-income n’hoods /
WHNC Access Fund
*On hold pending direction from school
district.*On hold
8 Zoning code size limits for houses Going to planning commission for
discussion. 4/12/21
9 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is researching options. 2nd qtr. 2021
11 STEP discussion: facilities Council asked staff to consider lending
options to assist STEP in buying a new bldg. On hold
12
Remove mint & menthol
exemption from existing flavored
tobacco policy
On hold pending court decision. *On hold
+ Vehicle idling TBD
+ Semi-trailer truck parking TBD
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
- Policing discussion Discussed 7/27/20 , 9/29 /20 & 2/22/21. TBD
10 Boards and commissions general
review
Discussed 1/25/21. Revisit after the annual
workplan process. 3rd qtr. 2021
- Conversion therapy ban
Report on 2/22/21. Resolution adopted
3/15/21. HRC to review and make
recommendations on ordinance.
TBD
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Boards and commissions appointment process update
Recommended action: City council to provide feedback on the proposed candidates to be
interviewed for the city’s boards and commissions and the proposed interview panels.
Policy consideration:
•Is the council in support of the attached list of candidates to interview and the proposed
interview panels?
•Is the council in support of the appointments to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission?
•Does the city council have additional questions regarding the annual appointment process?
Summary: Appointments to the seven boards and commissions occurs annually. The attached
report highlights the annual appointment process and interview schedule. The proposed
interview panels and candidates to be interview are also attached. In addition, staff provides an
update and recommendation on appointments to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC).
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create
a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Boards and commissions appointment process update
Discussion
Background: Appointments to the seven boards and commissions occurs annually. The
application period for the annual appointment process began January 4, 2021 and closed on
February 28, 2021. The city received 45 applications for city boards and commissions. During
the month of March, the city council reviewed and evaluate d all the applications that were
submitted. Candidate interviews will be held in April and May. Next steps include:
•Week of April 12 – Staff will notify candidates of their application status and schedule
interviews
•April 20 – May 7 – panels will conduct candidate interviews and make recommendations
to staff
•May/June– formal approval of appointments
Interviews: The council will participate in interview panels consisting of no more than three
council members and the commission chair. Each council member is proposed to be on three
panels. Some commission Chairs are up for reappointment, in those cases the Vice Chair or an
alternate has been selected to participate on the interview panel. Similar to last year, the
interview panels will provide their recommendations to the whole council for approval at a
meeting in May or June.
Staff recommends the council interview the candidates highlighted in green below based on
average scores, number of vacancies per commission, number of applicants per commission
and the ability to have at least two alternates in case vacancies occur during the year.
Community Technology Advisory Commission
Proposed interview panel: Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Tim Brausen and Commission Chair Levine
Interview 4 applicants for 1 commission vacancy.
Applicant Ward Average Score
Slaats, Konnor 4 4.4
Tift, Sam 4 4.3
Wilden, Matthew 1 4.1
Goldman, Simon 1 4.0
Eggen, David 3 3.9
Alsharit, Ahmed 4 3.6
McSherry, Robert 1 3.6
Lund, Kristian 2 3.3
Saesan, Joshua 1 3.3
Minter, David 3 2.9
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 5 ) Page 3
Title: Boards and commissions appointment process update
Environment and Sustainability Commission
Proposed interview panel: Larry Kraft, Rachel Harris, Nadia Mohamed and Commission Chair Baye r
Note: The Environment and Sustainability Commission conducted outreach to the business
community for applicants. Staff recommends the council interview Michael Doyle, a business
representative, due to the commissions goal of attracting applicants from the business community.
Interview 10 applicants for 6 commission vacancies.
Applicant Ward Average Score
Ashare, Shaina (seeking reappointment) 3 4.7
Shahidi, Sasha 2 4.7
Wilson, Joffrey 2 4.7
Giraldo, Tatiana 1 4.4
Griffin, Ryan (seeking reappointment) 2 4.3
Wilsey, David 1 4.3
Johnson, Holly 2 4.0
Moore, JD 4 4.0
Pengelly, Paget 2 4.0
Lawrence, Angela 1 3.7
Person, Richard 4 3.7
Scott, Thomas 1 3.7
Aafedt, Cody 3 3.6
Warbuck, Sarah 1 3.6
Willette, Andrew (seeking reappointment) 4 3.4
Lund, Kristian 2 3.3
Doyle, Michael (business member) N/A 3.1
Hannon, Cole 2 3.1
McSherry, Robert 1 3.0
Schermann, Joseph 1 3.0
Eckholm, Matthew 3 2.9
Morgan, Nicholas 3 2.9
Glozman, Natalie 2 2.7
Minter, David 3 2.3
Housing Authority
Proposed interview panel: Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog and Commissioner Webb
(Chair Courtney is seeking reappointment)
Interview 5 applicants for 2 commission vacancies.
Applicant Ward Average Score
Lund, Kristian 2 4.6
Courtney, Catherine (seeking reappointment) 1 4.1
Miller, Thom 1 3.7
Glozman, Natalie 2 3.3
Engberg, Sara Mae 3 3.1
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 5 ) Page 4
Title: Boards and commissions appointment process update
Human Rights Commission
Proposed interview p anel: Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, Jake Spano and Commission Chair
Mancini
Interview 5 applicants for 1 commission vacancy.
Applicant Ward Average Score
McIvor, Saiko 2 4.7
Wilson, Joffrey 2 4.7
McMillan, Jacqueline 4 4.1
Lawler Turnbull, Catherine (Katie) 3 4.0
Scott, Thomas 1 4.0
Hunsinger, Lynn 2 3.9
Pappas Stanoch, Pamela Kay 4 3.7
Engberg, Sara Mae 3 3.0
Lawrence, Angela 1 3.0
Planning Commission
Proposed interview panel: Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris , Jake Spano and Commissio n Vice
Chair Beneke (Chair Eckholm is seeking reappointment)
Interview 7 applicants for 4 commission vacancies.
Applicant Ward Average Score
Kraft, Jessica (seeking reappointment ) 1 5.0
Wilson, Joffrey 2 5.0
Eckholm, Matthew (seeking reappointment) 3 4.7
Miller, Thom 1 3.7
Griffin, Ryan 2 3.3
Salzer, Michael 1 3.3
Tift, Sam 4 3.0
Police Advisory Commission
Proposed interview panel: Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, Lynette Dumalag and Commission
Chair Tousignant
Interview 6 applicants for 4 commission vacancies.
Applicant Ward Average Score
Slais, Diane 3 4.4
Kinney, Matt (seeking reappointment) 3 4.3
Schermann, Joseph 1 4.3
Morgan, Nicholas 3 3.9
Nevells, Tracy 1 3.9
Bossman, Robert 2 3.1
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 5 ) Page 5
Title: Boards and commissions appointment process update
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
No interviews are required as there are no current vacancies on the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission. Proposed panel if a vacancy occurs later this year: Jake Spano, Tim
Brausen, Margaret Rog.
Basset Creek Watershed District
The City of St. Louis Park is partially located in the Bassett Creek Watershed. The BCWMC was
established by a Joint Powers Agreement authorized under Minnesota State Statues to oversee
and coordinate the management of surface water between the nine membe r cities, which
include Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth,
Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park. The BCWMC’s mission is to control flooding and to maintain and
enhance the quality of the surface and ground water resources in the watershed.
Each member city is entitled to appoint one Commissioner, one Alternate Commissioner, and
one member to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the BCWMC. Current commissioner
Jim de Lambert, and staff member Erick Francis (TAC) would like to continue being part of
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. The Alternate Commissioner is currently
vacant. One of this year’s boards and commission s applicant, Angela Lawrence , indicated an
interest in serving on the watershed. Staff discussed the role of Alternate Commissioner with
the applicant and recommends their approval to the commission. The council will be asked to
approve the Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission appointments at their April 19,
2021 council meeting.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge and public art update
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to update the city council on the Dakota-
Edgewood trail bridge and the public art component of the project. This report is for
informational purposes and does not require any action.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The city council approved the Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge project in September
2020. The Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge is part of the city’s Connect the Park plan that aims to
add more bikeways, sidewalks and trails throughout the community. During the project
discussion and approval, the city council identified the opportunity for public art at this
location. The city has engaged Friends of the Arts (FOTA) to lead a new public art process and
engage Indigenous communities and seek a Native artist or artist team to create a project that
can educate and honor Indigenous Peoples and culture. The p roject will also have an art piece
that will be created by students from Peter Hobart Elementary School.
Financial or budget considerations: The project was approved by city council in September
2020 at a construction cost of $7,340,684. Most of the project funding is from General
Obligation bonds and federal aid. The funding for the $80,000 public art component is being
provided by the administrative fees the city receives from the lodging tax.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create
a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer
Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge and public art update
Discussion
Dakota-Edgewood Trail bridge construction progress
The Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge is part of the city’s Connect the Park plan. The project area
includes Edgewood Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to the BNSF railroad tracks and Dakota Park
to 26th Street. The project includes the following components:
•A multi-use trail along the east side of Edgewood Avenue between Cedar Lake Road and
BNSF Railway right of way.
•A pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the BNSF railroad connecting Edgewood Avenue
and Dakota Park.
•A multi-use trail will connect the bridge to the bikeway at the corner of 26th Street and
Dakota Avenue.
Construction began in October 2020 with site preparation and quickly progressed to pile driving
and concrete construction for the bridge piers. Work was suspended for the winter in late
December. The YouTube drone video https://youtu.be/6j6af1iOjiQ shows the construction
progress right before the contractor shut down for the winter.
The warm end to winter allowed the contractor to resume work on the concrete foundations
and bridge piers in early February. Work has now shifted to construction of the temporary
forms needed to create the concrete bridge spans. These forms can be seen in the included
photos. The process of building temporary formwork, pouring the concrete, allowing the
concrete to cure, removing the formwork, and repeating the process for the remaining bridge
spans is expected to be ongoing for several months.
Later this summer, the contractor will set the prefabricated steel truss over the BNSF Railroad,
install the concrete deck and decorative metal railing. Once the bridge is set the contractor will
complete the remaining tasks on the bridge and begin work on the trail adjacent to Edgewood
Avenue.
The North Cedar Lake Trail is expected to be detoured around the construction site starting in
late May and June for the contractor to safely complete their work. The trail detour will take
users through Nelson Park, along 26th Street and back into Dakota Park to avoid the
construction activities.
The project is on schedule and is expected to be open for use by November of this year.
Public Art
The city has engaged Friends of the Arts (FOTA) to lead a new public art process at the Dakota
Bridge site. The site -specific public artwork will be installed after the construction of the bridge
and not integrated into the structure, providing more time for a complete and thorough
process, which will include a public request for qualifications (RFQ) and multiple artist designs
to be chosen from by a selection panel representing city staff from multiple departments, Peter
Hobart, local residents, and the arts community. In consideration of racial equity goals and the
new Strategic Roadmap for Advancing Arts & Culture, and recognizing Dakota people as the
original stewards of this land, we are engaging Indigenous communities and seeking a Native
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 6 ) Page 3
Title: Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge and public art update
artist or artist team for the project to educate community and honor Indigenous Peoples and
culture.
In addition, FOTA has also engaged Joe DeCamillis, the arts teacher at Peter Hobart Elementary,
to lead a project with students, incorporating their ideas and artwork into a permanent piece at
the site.
All art components are expected to be installed in the spring of 2022.
Photo 1: North side of BNSF Railroad looking southwest
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 6 ) Page 4
Title: Dakota-Edgewood trail bridge and public art update
Photo 2: North side of BNSF Railroad looking west showing wooden formwork
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Climate Champions cost sharing program
Recommended action: None at this time. This report is intended to inform council of the details
of the Climate Champions program for 2021.
Policy consideration: Is the city council supportive of the Climate Champions program and cost
sharing methodology as described?
Summary: Sustainability Division staff have developed a “Climate Champions” program which
seeks to engage, reward and recognize residential and commercial property owners who
choose to complete a no/low -cost energy assessment at their property and commit to
undertake building energy improvements using loan, rebate and/or cost share programs. The
city will partner and coordinate wit h third-party providers such as the Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce’s Energy Smart program for commercial and industrial buildings in order to
complete the energy assessments. The Climate Champions cost share program will be a city
reimbursement program offe red as an additional incentive beyond existing low-interest loans,
utility rebates, and grants, with t he share of costs reimbursed by the city based on the amount
rebated to the customer by the utilities under their Conservation Improvement Program (CIP)
methodology.
Financial or budget considerations: Costs for the proposed programs would result in up to a
$100,000 expenditure in the first year; that amount is currently budgeted in the 2021 general
operating fund budget and will be shifted to the new Climate Investment Fund once it is
established . With the development of the Climate Investment Fund, cost sharing programs like
this will be funded through that fund in future years rather than operating fund budget.
Expenditures for each future year that the program continues will be determined once staff
assesses the response to the program.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Climate Champions cost sharing program
Discussion
Background: Emissions from buildings make up 58% of all greenhouse gas emissions in St. Louis
Park. Because this sector is so large, a large focus of the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes
goals to reduce energy consumption across building types, including commercial and residential.
Present considerations:
Program description
Because cities cannot regulate the energy use of private property, one of the best methods for
reducing energy consumption in existing buildings is using a variety of incentives to encou rage
energy efficiency. Sustainability Division staff recommend packaging these incentives into an
umbrella program called “Climate Champions”; over the next three years, the division plans to
roll out Climate Champions for commercial & industrial properties, multifamily residential
properties, 1-4 unit residential properties, and institutional/nonprofit properties (in that order).
The focus on this initial year of the program will be commercial & industrial properties , as
e missions from the commercial sect or are nearly double the emissions of the residential sector.
There are approximately 630 commercial buildings in St. Louis Park, 157 of which are greater
than 20,000 square feet. While larger buildings do not necessarily use more energy, size can be
a good indicator of potential opportunities for energy savings.
No matter the property type, the proposed Climate Champions program would begin with an
offer of low or no-cost energy assessments to property owners and tenants. Property owners
and tenants who choose to follow through with the assessment would then receive a building
energy report that includes recommended energy improvements, cost of undertaking the
improvements and a list of eligible loans , grants, rebates and cost sharing opportunities
(including the new Climate Champions cost share program; more below). Should a property
owner or tenant choose to invest in one or more improvements, the property owner or tenant
would receive cost share funding and be recognized as a Climate Champion.
Many property owners are simply not aware that so many loan and rebate programs exist, so
this program will serve as an awareness campaign for many. Xcel’s Partners in Energy program
staff have offered to develop marketing materials for the program at no cost to cities that have
completed Energy Action Plans—including St. Louis Park. While the capital cost of replacing
inefficient equipment may have dissuaded some property owners from making energy
improvements in the past, the program aims to overcome this barrier by optimizing incentives
and adding a public recognition element.
Climate Champions will be publicly recognized in a number of ways. A “Climate Champion”
window cling will be provided to the owner to place on their home or business entrance.
Champions will be listed on the city website and in the Park Perspective.
Program goals
The intent of the program for commercial and multifamily properties is to make progress in
Climate Action Plan Goals 1 and 2, strategies 1, 2, and 3. As a reminder, those goals are:
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 7 ) Page 3
Title: Climate Champions cost sharing program
Goal 1: Reduce energy consumption in large commercial and industrial (C/I) buildings by 30%
by 2030, as compared to the business-as-usual forecast.
Strategy 1: Building Retrofits: 79 buildings complete retrofits by 2030, saving an average of 18%
(1.5% of total building emissions).
Strategy 2: Appliance, Equipment and Fixture Efficiency: 79 buildings replace equipment with
high efficiency models by 2030, saving an average of 25% (3.3% of total building emissions).
Strategy 3: Efficient Building Operations: By 2030, 143 buildings are actively engaged in building
operations best management practices (BMPs), saving an average of 15% (7.7% of total building
emissions).
Goal 2: Reduce energy consumption in small to mid-size commercial buildings by 30% by
2030, as compared to the business-as-usual forecast.
Strategy 1: Building Retrofits: 117 small and mid-sized buildings complete retrofits by 2030,
resulting in an average energy savings of 18% (0.7% of total building emissions).
Strategy 2: Appliance, Equipment and Fixture Efficiency: 188 buildings replace equipment with
high efficiency models, resulting in an average energy savings of 17% (2.6% of total building
emissions).
Strategy 3: Efficient Building Operations: By 2030, 235 buildings are actively engaged in building
operations BMPs, saving an average of 23% (3.0% of total building emissions).
Progress against each of the specific strategies will be tracked internally using available
program participation data from Xcel and CenterPoint. Note that the participation data is not a
perfect proxy for progress in each strategy due to a number of factors: 1) property owners may
undertake improvements outside of the Climate Champions program, or may not take
advantage of utility rebate programs; 2) utility programs do not perfectly map to the individual
strategies (for example, Xcel’s HVAC-R rebate program could fit into both Strategy 1 and
Strategy 2). Further, property owners may choose to complete an energy assessment but
decide against making building improvements for many reasons.
Eligible building improvements include:
• Retrofits (window replacement; air sealing and insulation ; air conditioning ; HVAC
controls; high efficiency boilers, furnaces, and water heaters)
• Appliance replacements (re frigeration)
• Equipment replacements (foodservice equipment, compressed air and fluid syste ms,
process equipment)
• Fixture replacements (lighting retrofits)
Eligible Climate Champions cost share projects must have a payback period of greater than one
year; this is a common standard used to prevent significant funds being expended on simple
LED lighting retrofit projects that businesses should be expected to undertake.
Recommended cost share methodology
The share of costs reimbursed by the city will be dependent on the amount rebated to the
customer by the utilities under their Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) methodology.
Under the CIP methodology, state law requires energy utilities to set aside a portion of their
operating revenues for projects that reduce the consumption of electricity and natural gas
(doing so may help avoid another power plant from being built, and may allow the partial or
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 7 ) Page 4
Title: Climate Champions cost sharing program
complete closure of existing plants). With these funds, the utilities offer rebates to their
customers who purchase energy-efficient products such as furnaces or motors.
Th e CIP methodology is updated every three years and must be approved by the Department of
Commerce. The Department of Commerce evaluate s energy conservation improvement
programs on the basis of cost effectiveness and the reliability of the technologies employed. As
a result, larger rebates are given for greater energy efficiency improvements. Because council
has indicated support for programs that follow a similar “carbon reduction return on
investment (ROI)” methodology, staff recommends basing the cost share amounts on the
amounts rebated under the CIP methodology. (Alternatively, reimbursements could be based
on a flat percentage per project, or a dollar amount per energy unit saved, however the former
does not take into account carbon ROI and the latter has proven to be too confusing for
customers under other cities’ past programs.)
Note that staff recognizes that energy reduction is not synonymous with carbon reduction;
different fuels emit different amounts of greenhouse gases in relation to the energy they
produce when burned (and emit when extracted and transported). While electricity generation
has gotten cleaner over the past decade and continues to trend in that direction, natural gas is
far more difficult to “green.” In 2019, n atural gas made up 68% of the energy consumed by
commercial & industrial and residential buildings in St. Louis Park but 53% of the city’s
greenhouse gas emissions from building energy consumption. Given the difficulty in “greening”
natural gas and the increasingly clean energy grid, it is imperative to push for conservation and
efficiency in both electricity and natural gas consumption along with fuel switching (i.e.
electrification). Programs that promote electrification will be addressed separately from
Climate Champions given the differences in partners, messaging, and implementation.
Cost share amounts will be based on a percentage of the utility rebate amount. Staff proposes a
“base rate” of 50%, which is consistent with the current methodology for rebates under the
Housing Division’s Energy Efficient Rebates program for furnaces, water heaters, air
conditioners, and air sealing and insulation projects. Th at program has issued over 1,000
rebates since it launched in 2009, at a total cost of approximately $250,000.
Recommended cost share amounts are as follows:
Rate Cost Share Criteria
Base rate 50% of total utility rebate,
up to $2,500 max
Any property in the city of St. Louis Park
that fulfills the program eligibility criteria
Environmental Justice rate 75% of total utility rebate,
up to $3,500 max
Any property in the city of St. Louis Park
that fulfills the program eligibility criteria
and is located within census tract 223.02
Properties complying with
the Efficient Building
Benchmarking ordinance
or voluntarily participating
in benchmarking
75% of total utility rebate,
up to $3,500 max
Any property in the city of St. Louis Park
that fulfills the program eligibility criteria
and is subject to and currently in
compliance with the Efficient Building
Benchmarking ordinance, or chooses to
participate in annual benchmarking
voluntarily beginning in 2021
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 7 ) Page 5
Title: Climate Champions cost sharing program
The maximum cost share amounts can be adjusted once staff is able to gauge demand for the
program offerings.
As an example:
A 12,000 square foot office building undergoes a no-cost energy assessment. Energy experts
identify many opportunities to improve energy efficiency and update equipment. The
property owner chooses to retrofit the fluorescent lighting with LEDs.
This hypothetical building is also located in a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-identified
environmental justice area of concern, meaning the Climate Champions cost share covers
75% of the utility rebate amount, up to $3,500.
Costs Before Rebates $11,127
Utility Rebate ($3,707)
Climate Champions cost share ($2,780)
Final Cost $4,640
The final cost does not include any grants monies which are currently available through the
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Business Energy Efficiency Grant program, which can
amount to 20% of the project cost. The final cost can also be financed through a number of low-
cost financing programs, which will also be presented to the property owner.
For building operations best management practices (strategy 3), property owners who pay for
building operators to attend Building Operator Certification (BOC) Level 1 training and pass the
certification exam will receive $500 or $1,000 per trainee , with the higher amount rebated to
building owners whose BOC certified workers are from traditionally underrepresented groups.
Properties complying with the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance or voluntarily
participating in benchmarking may also receive the higher amount per trainee.
Cost of BOC Training Before Rebates $1,585
Utility Rebate ($500)
Climate Champions cost share ($500)
Final Cost $585
The final cost for BOC training does not include any grant monies for military veterans, which
are currently available through the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
The impact of COVID-19 on the program will be closely watched. Many businesses will not be
inte rested in engaging in discussion of energy efficiency at this time. For others, however, now
may be a perfect time to take advantage of a temporarily closed business or a renovation
already underway to add on energy efficiency projects and save operating dollars. Business
partners have noted that the businesses feeling the greatest impact of the pandemic may be
those most in need of long-term operating cost savings.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 7 ) Page 6
Title: Climate Champions cost sharing program
Next steps: Staff will be working closely to coordinate the program launch with partners at the
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce’s Energy Smart program on the first phase of Climate
Champions (commercial & industrial properties). Note that third-party assessment providers
vary by property type and income threshold, so future iterations of Climate Champions will rely
on partnerships with Center for Energy & Environment (residential 1-4 units), Xcel/Centerpoint
(multifamily), and others (EnerChange, SRC, etc.).
Communications will be developed to advertise the program, and outreach will initially target
those property owners whose buildings scored within the highest third for energy use intensity
when benchmarked under the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance.
The Climate Champions cost sharing program will continue into 2022 using funds available
through the Climate Investment Fund. Staff will continue to monitor and report progress that
the city is making against Climate Action Plan goals.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 12, 2021
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Transit-oriented development zoning district
Recommended action: None at this time.
Policy consideration: Is the council supportive of a transit-oriented development zoning district
around the city’s light rail stations?
Summary: In 2019 the City of St. Louis Park adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which
established a transit-oriented development (TOD) land use category to help the city achieve its
vision for a livable community and to encourage high density, mixed-use centers near
Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) stations.
Large areas of land near the light rail transit (LRT) stations were guided TOD in the future land
use map, including properties on the south side of Highway 7/CSAH 25, Beltline Boulevard, 36th
Street near the future Wooddale Avenue LRT station, and parcels near the future Louisiana
Avenue LRT station. These areas were rezoned in 2019 to Mixed-use 1, vertical mixed -use, or
other zoning districts that more closely relate to the TOD land use and comply with
Metropolitan Council guidelines. However, the existing districts do not fully achieve the desired
TOD residential densities as defined in the comprehensive plan. Instead, the city frequently
relies upon rezoning parcels to a planned unit development zoning district on a case by case
basis to meet the densities described in the comprehensive plan.
To more systematically implement land use and development policies and provide greater
flexibility near LRT stations, staff recommend the city prepare a zoning district that primarily
focuses on building form. This district would be intended to help create a pedestrian and transit-
oriented development pattern and advances other goals of the comprehensive plan. Building
form includes such things as building height, building mass, parking placement, locations for
open space, the way a building relates to the street with windows, doors, materials and
streetscape. Uses would still be regulated, but with less emphasis than traditional zoning.
The planning commission discussed this topic at two study sessions earlier this year and the
creation of the TOD district is a high priority as per their work plan for 2021. This is also
included in the implementation chapter of the St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan .
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Beltline Design Guidelines
The Elmwood Area Land Use and Transportation Study
Louisiana Station Area plans
TOD area map
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, senior planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Baron, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 8 ) Page 2
Title: Transit-oriented development zoning district
Discussion
Background: In 2019 the City of St. Louis Park adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which
established a transit-oriented development (TOD) land use category to help the city achieve its
vision for a livable community and to encourage high density, mixed-use centers near
Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) stations.
The TOD Land Use designation definition states the following:
In the Transit Oriented Development land use designation, a mix of uses are allowed,
including commercial, office, residential, civic, and parks/open space. The mix of uses
must be oriented toward the transitway stations along the planned SWLRT line. The goal
of this designation is to create pedestrian-scale developments within a ten-minute walk
of a transitway station. The focus of the designation is on block sizes, lot sizes, and
building forms that create a pedestrian-rich environment, rather than a specific mix of
uses. It is expected that residential uses will make up approximately 75 to 85 percent of
uses; the remaining 15 to 25 percent will likely be commercial, office, and other similar
uses. The net residential density range allowed is 50 to 125 units per acre.
Large areas of land near the LRT stations were guided TOD in the future land use map, including
properties on the south side of Highway 7/CSAH 25, Beltline Boulevard, 36th Street near the
future Wooddale Avenue LRT station, and parcels near the future Louisiana Avenue LRT station.
These areas were rezoned in 2019 to Mixed-use 1, vertical mixed-use, or other zoning districts
that more closely relate to the TOD land use and comply with Metropolitan Council guidelines.
However, the existing districts do not fully achieve the desired TOD residential densities as
defined in the comprehensive plan. Instead, the city frequently relies upon rezoning parcels to a
planned unit development zoning district on a case by case basis to meet the densities
described in the comprehensive plan.
Goals and strategies within the comprehensive plan support and encourage a new zoning
district be created specifically for areas around the LRT stations. Several of these goals and
strategies are copied below.
The Mixed -use Land Use Goal #2: Pursue redevelopment of future light rail transit station areas
as transit-oriented, high density, well-connected, mixed-use centers.
Strategies
A. Promote and support the Wooddale Station Area as a transit-oriented mixed-use
neighborhood.
B. Promote and support the Beltline Station Area and Louisiana Station Area as primarily
transit oriented, mixed -use employment centers.
C. Require transit-oriented development on properties near future light rail transit
stations consistent with station area framework plans.
D. Consider adopting form-based codes or similar zoning amendments to help
implement station area framework plans.
Transit Mobility Goals #2: Continuously explore, research, and support ways to expand the
transit network and maximize service to the community.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 8 ) Page 3
Title: Transit-oriented development zoning district
A. Support transit-oriented development so people can live and/or work in transit
served areas and not be auto-dependent. Use travel demand management strategies to
encourage more transit usage in new developments
There are also goals and strategies within the comprehensive plan that support protecting and
enhancing industrial and business park property within the city to expand the city’s
employment base. Much of this land is near the LRT stations, including the Be ltline Boulevard
LRT station and the Louisiana Avenue LRT Station.
Industrial & Business Park Land Use Goal #2 Promote the development of business park land
uses in designated employment areas as a way to expand the city’s employment base and
opportunities, increase the city’s tax base, and meet the changing market and technological
needs of the business sector.
A. Promote business park developments that utilize more efficient land use and building
designs than traditional industrial development, such as multi-story buildings, multi-
tenant buildings, and structured parking.
B. Encourage and support new business park developments that are designed as
employment centers that are integrated into the community with strong connections to
adjacent public streets and spaces, natural features, transit, and other community
amenities.
C. Require that new business park developments provide efficient and attractive parking
designs, appropriate landscaping, and high-quality building architecture.
D. Allow limited commercial and service uses that provide valuable services to, and
extend hours of activity within, employment centers without eroding the employment
focus of these areas, sites and buildings.
Zoning approach: Due to the complexities of the existing and future land use surrounding LRT
stations, staff recommends the city adopt a zoning district that primarily focuses on building
form to create a pedestrian and transit-oriented street design to achieve the goals of the
comprehensive plan. Form includes such things as building height, building mass, parking
placement, locations for open space, the way a building relates to the street with windows,
doors, materials and streetscape. Uses would still be regulated, but with less emphasis than
traditional zoning.
The city utilized a similar approach for the MX -1, vertical mixed -use, and the newly adopted
MX-2, neighborhood mixed-use districts. These districts were adapted from a draft code was
that written for St. Louis Park LRT station areas between 2014 and 2015 to encourage transit-
oriented development around the SWLRT stations. That draft code has not been adopted. Staff
intends to utilize this same draft code as the starting point for the new TOD zoning district. The
draft code is based on the foundations that were established in the Beltline Design Guidelines ,
The Elmwood Area Land Use and Transportation Study, and the Louisiana Station Area plans, all
of which included robust public input processes. The draft code was reviewed by previous
planning commissioners and a work group of community members, but needs some work to
make it easier to use, changes to the zoning district boundaries, as well as some updates based
on additional city priorities including sustainable buildings, inclusionary housing and other 2040
Comprehensive Plan policies.
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No. 8 ) Page 4
Title: Transit-oriented development zoning district
The city anticipates immense redevelopment pressure around the LRT stations in the coming
years. Staff believes a code that focuses on form rather than uses will help to lessen community
anxiety regarding future redevelopment in the station areas. This type of code will also be
helpful when planning for future public infrastructure, as the city will be better able to predict
the minimum and maximum capacities needed for water, sewer and transportation.
Planning commission: The planning commission met on February 24, 2021 to review the goals
and strategies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as they relate to the proposed TOD zoning
district and to discuss the overall zoning approach they would like to take for the district. In
March, the commission reviewed various planning studies and the station area plans to ensure
the commission still support the visions and frameworks established in those plans, which were
used to create the draft TOD zoning district.
The planning commission is supportive of creating a TOD zoning district around LRT stations
that is based on the visions and frameworks previously established in the station area plans.
This district is a priority in the commission’s 2021 work plan.
Present considerations: Is the council supportive of the creation of a transit-oriented
development ordinance around LRT stations? Would city council like a presentation of the
ordinance during a study session prior to beginning the formal approval process?
Next steps: Throughout 2021, the planning commission will work with staff to create a TOD
district to present to city council for consideration. The district will include regulating maps,
frontage types, form standards, uses, and performance requirements.
The council will ultimately be requested to rezone land surrounding the LRT stations to the
newly established TOD district.
Transit-oriented zoning district
Study area
£¤?A@
£¤
£¤\]^
\]^
?A@
\]^
?A@
GWX
GWX
GWX
?A@
GWX
?A@
GWX GWX
GWX
5
5
7
3
3
5
7
17
25
100
100
394
100
394
394
169
169
169
Legend
*Draft Zoning District Boundaries
POS Park and Open Space
R-1 Single-Family Residence
R-2 Single-Family Residence
R-3 Two-Family Residence
R-4 Multiple-Family Residence
R-C High-Density Multiple Family
MX-1 Vertical Mixed-Use
MX-2 Neighborhood Mixed-Use
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 General Commercial
BP Business Park
O Office
I-P Industrial Park
I-G General Industrial
PUD Planned Unit Development ´0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Source: Community Development 2021
*District boundaries based on draft code from 2015
Study session meeting of April 12, 2021 (Item No.8)
Title: Transit-oriented development zoning district Page 5