HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/04/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 26, 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 26, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. by videoconference to
re convene the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE), which will be followed by a joint
study session with the St. Louis Park Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. Meeting
participants will meet by electronic device or phone rather than by being personally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to
view the agenda and reports.
Members of the public who want to address the council during the reconvene of the LBAE should
call the 952.562.2886. Call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided.
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.
6:30 p.m. – RECONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION (LBAE)
Immediately following LBAE – STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 30 mins. Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
2. 30 mins Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review
3. 60 mins. Zoning code size limits for houses
4. 5 mins. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
5 m ins. Communications/updates (verbal)
Written reports
5. March 2021 monthly financial report
6. First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)
7. Redistricting update
8. Sustainability division update for Q2 2021
9. Freight rail switching wye
10. Development update
11. Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard
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 available 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.
2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Reconvene – April 2 6, 2021
Virtual Meeting Format
PROPOSED AGENDA
1.Reconvene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2.Ro ll Call – Declaration of Quorum
3.Acknowledgement of Trained Members (Kraft & Rog)
4.Review of Properties in Appeal
a.Board Action - Where Petitioner & Assessing Staff are Not in Agreement
b.Board Action – Where Petitioner has requested late addition to roster and staff has
not had time to complete value review (these continue until the board adjourns)
c.Board Action – Where Petitioner has withdrawn or not responded
d.Board Action - Where Petitioner & Assessing Staff are in Mutual Agreement
For appeals in groups a-b-c, it is suggested that the board re view each parcel
individually , discuss as you will and make individual board rulings. For the mutual
agreement category, each parcel should be read into the record and the board may take
one group action per DOR direction (April 2016).
5.Instruct Asse ssor to Complete Record of Changes for Submittal
6.Instruct Assessor to Inform Petitioners of Board Action via Mail
7.Co mplet e the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Certification Form
8.Adjourn if Board business is completed
Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1 Page 2
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Background for the 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
All property owners are entitled to the right of appeal regarding their classification and market
value. The City is required by statute to conduct a Local Board of Appeal & Equalization
meeting to he ar appeals or conduct an open book meeting with the next options being the
County Board of Appeal & Equalization and ultimately to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
The focus for the board is: the property classification which is determined by use; and, the
market value which is based on the characteristics of the real estate and market condition s as
of the date of the assessment (January 2, 2021). Minnesota statute requires that all properties
are assessed at full market value. The two dominant definitions of market value are:
MN Statute 272.03 – “Market value” means the usual selling price at the place where
the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the
price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by
the assessor that the price from the auction sale represe nts an arm’s length transaction.
The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.
Appraisal Institute – The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash or in terms
equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property
rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions
requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and selle r each acting prudently, knowledgeably,
and for self -interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress. (The Appraisal of
Real Estate, 13th Edition, Appraisal Institute [2008], page 23)
The Board convened on April 12, 2021 at which meeting a total of eight (8) parcels were
recognized to be under appeal. The Board set the process and chos e to reconvene April 26 to
review the merit of each appeal and to rule on them.
A few housekeeping observations are made for the reference of the board.
•One trained and certified Board member (Kraft and/or Rog) must be present at each
meeting the Board is in session. Best practice is for multiple trained members.
•Timeline of the assessment: The assessment as of January 2, 2021 is set relative to
market activity occurring prior to the date of assessment. The potential value influence
arising from the Covid -19 pandemic will be reviewed from the perspective of market
reactions in setting the 2021 assessment.
•The time window for the board to conclude business is 20 days after convening.
•It is essential that the Board rules on each question before it and likewise that the Board
recognizes that it can re duce, sustain or increase valuations as deemed necessary.
•Important – DOR direction: “It is the board’s resp onsibility to hear all appeals presented
until the board adjourns. A property owner can present their appeal at the initial
meeting or at any of the reconvene meetings. The board must hear that appeal and
make a decision. The board cannot dismiss the prope rty owner’s appeal, unless the
meeting is adjourned.” The Hennepin County Assessor has reviewed that language and
requested that Local Boards accept appeals until final adjournment. We are doing so.
Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1 Page 3
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
•At the writing of this Board packet, staff has added one (1) additional appeal to the
roster and endeavored to respond in a timely fashion .
•Prior to adjourning, the board should instruct the assessor to submit a record of their
actio ns on the Department of Revenue required form.
•Finally, the Loca l Board of Appeal Certification Form must be signed at each Board
meeting by all Board members present. The Hennepin delegate takes care of this item.
Background to Valuation Methodologies: The modeling associated with the mass assessment
accommodates variations between neighborhoods, within neighborhoods and includes
consideration of location, age, style, size, finish materials, condition, updating, etc. depending
on the information available. Adjustments and valuation change orders have been made w here
necessary during the informal review process prio r to the Board.
The Board process differs from mass valuation modeling in that the assessing staff re -appraises
the subject property individually by direct comparison to market transactions. As part of the
review process, staff frequently re -inspects properties to review the accuracy of attributes and
especially current condition which is of ten a highly important variable . This facet of routine
business has not occurred for the 2021 Board season due to the pandemic. Instead, staff has
engaged the property owner in a candid conversation of the property condition and attributes
which depends a bit on the last interior inspection date.
In cases where the revaluation does not result in a conclusion satisfactory to the appellant, the
appeal proces s has been outlined. As such, the Local Board depends on active participation
from all parties involved including the property owner, assessing staff and the board members.
All property owners are requested to state their basis of appeal, their opinion of the market
value and informed that they may present information in written form and by testimony
supporting their opinion of value and/or classification.
Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1 Page 4
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Focal Points for the Board – Agenda as Indicated on Cover Sheet, decisions on:
1.Board Action – One (1) appe al has not been resolved to a mutual agreement between
the property owner’s tax representative and assessing staff. It is requested that the
Board hear and decide the merits of the case. We have informed the owner and their
representative that the Board commonly allows 5-10 minutes for presentation followed
by a 3-5 minute presentation by the assessing staff. The Board may adjust these time
allowances as needed.
2. Board Action – per the DOR direction we have accepted and resolved one (1) appeal
submitted after the April 12 published date. Th is appeal is highlighted yellow on the
reconvene roster. Should there be additional late appeals in the time between this
board packet and the date of reconvene, we will be requesting their addition to the
roster with proviso that we may not have completed the review due to time constraints.
3.Board Action – for cases where the petitioner has not responded, denied information or
has chosen to withdraw. One (1) appeal fits this category wi th appellant not responsive
to multiple contact attempts. The Board is reminded that some cases end up in this
category almost every year and they are properly listed on the board roster so they are
e ligible to appeal at the next level.
4.Board Action – Seven (7) appe als have been reviewed with the res ult that the property
owner and assessing staff have reached a mutually acceptable valuation (no
classifications were appealed). It is requested that the resolution for each parcel be
read into the record after which the Board may take one group action to affirm the
mutually agreed upon valuations.
Fo llowing your decision, each property owner will be notified via letter of the Board action and
to remin d them that they are eligible to appeal to the County Board. The Hennepin County
Board of Appeal and Equalization begins June 14, 2021. An application is re quested by the
County no later than May 21st. To appear before the County Board, all appellants must first
have appealed to the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization. Property owners may
als o appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.
Thank you for serving on the Board.
Prepared by: St. Louis Park Assessing Staff
Cory Bultema, city assessor
Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1 Page 5
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Tab Summary
Background & Focal Points for the Board
Tab 1: Roster of All A ppeals for Board Action
(the final roster update will be available to the Board for the meeting)
Tab 2: 5100 35th Street Appeal – Staff Report
(owner/tax rep did not supply materials for the Board report)
Reference 2021 Appealed Assessing Owner Board
Name Property Address Property ID #2020 Value Classification 2021 Value Revaluation Indicated Action
IC Industrial REIT (by Tax Rep)5100 35th Street W 06-028-24-32-0008 $6,000,000 I - Industrial $6,780,000 $7,400,000 Rep - Appeal
Robert Thompson Jr.8441 35th St W 18-117-21-42-0014 $248,200 R-Single Family - H $283,700 Sustain No Response
M & J Neale 3601 Lynn Ave S 06-028-24-43-0053 $362,300 DB - Double Bungalow $430,000 $405,000 Agree
Steven Feldman 9401 Franklin Ave W 07-117-21-22-0001 $476,700 R-Single Family - H $520,400 $495,000 Agree
Shirley Carlson 2421 Decatur Ave S 07-117-21-24-0054 $255,600 R-Single Family - H $292,200 $280,000 Agree
Grigory Livshits 2613 Edgewood Ave S 08-117-21-41-0106 $308,800 R-Single Family - H $318,700 $285,000 Agree
D. Peter Revocable Trust 3354 Zarthan Ave S 16-117-21-24-0186 $301,600 R-Single Family Non $324,500 $324,500 Agree
Caroline Walstead 3104 Dakota Ave S 17-117-21-11-0170 $291,100 R-Single Family - H $325,400 $291,100 Agree
Bruce Bolduc 2308 Willow La S 31-029-24-12-0011 $610,300 R-Single Family - H $665,700 $647,000 Agree
Roster - City of St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization - Reconvene April 26, 2021
Contact AFTER published date of the Board -- added per DOR Directive
Page 6 Reconvene meeting of April 26, 2021
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC
5100 35th St W
06-028-24-32-0008
2021 Assessed Value: $6,780,000
Recommendation: $7,300,000 to $7,500,000
This report is not an appraisal as defined in M.S. § 82B.02 (subd.3) nor does it comply with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice. It is intended to be used as a reference only and any use other than its intended use is
prohibited and unlawful. The author does not represent this to be an appraisal and is not responsible for any inappropriate use.
It is a report of public records using a mass appraisal technique.
Page 7 Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
City of St. Louis Park
Assessing Department
2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Staff Report
Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC
Property Owner(s):
5100 35th St W Property Address:
06-028-24-32-0008PID #:
Market Value
$6,780,000Assessment Year 2021
$6,000,000Assessment Year 2020
$5,450,000Assessment Year 2019
Sale:June 9, 2017 - 11,170,000 (01 - Warranty Deed)
Assessor Recommendation:
$7,300,000 to $7,500,000
Appraiser:
BN September 17, 2019
Last Inspection Date:
Comments:
The subject property is a 121,985 square foot office warehouse with 8,063 square feet of office space
and clearance heights ranging from 22' to 28'. The building was constructed in 1960 and a 28,160
square feet addition was added to the building in 2008. The building is considered to be in overall
average condition. The subject has had two sales within the last 6 years. It sold in February of 2015
for $10.3 million with an appraisal at the time at $10.2 million. The latest sale was in June 2017 for
$11.17 million as part of a portfolio with allocated sales prices based on the income streams of each
property.
Industrial properties with gross building areas (GBA) over 75,000 square feet with sale dates after
January 1, 2019 in suburban Hennepin County were analyzed. There were a total of 37 comparables
in this search parameter with the average GBA of 128,174 square feet and the average sale price of
$76.33 per GBA. Four comparable properties were chosen. Three of the comparables chosen are
within close proximity to the subject. The fourth comparable, in Maple Grove, was chosen due to the
fact that it is very close in size and is a single tenant building. The chosen comparables range in sale
price from $55.20/sf to $109.32/sf.
Comparable 1 sold December 15, 2020. This is a single tenant building in close proximity to the
subject with a similar year built. This property does have considerable more office finish with 35%
compared to the subject's 7% and a lower average clear height of 16'. The sale works out to $88.99
per square foot. Comparable 2 consists of three adjacent industrial properties that sold under one
transaction with one appraisal to support the total sale price. The sale date on this comparable was
September 11, 2020 for $109.32 per square foot. These are multi-tenant buildings that are one
property to the east of the subject. The improvements in this comparable
2021 Board of Appeal and Equalization Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC
Page 8 Reconvene meeting of April 26, 202 1
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
sale were built in 1962, 1963 and 1966 so a similar vintage to the subject. The average clear
height in these buildings is 14' and there is 41% office finish. Comparable 3 is a multi-tenant
building that was chosen due to it's proximity to the subject. This property sold April 9, 2020
for $93.60/sf as part of a portfolio of properties. This property has a average clear height of
13.5' and 61% office finish. Comparable 4 was chosen due to it's close size to the subject and
given that it is a single tenant property. This comparable had been vacant for over a year
before the sale. This is the oldest of the transaction given the December 16, 2019 sale date at
$55.20/sf. This property transacted at $55.20 per square foot with the buyer noting that
approximately $200,000 in repairs were needed. This property has average clear heights of 30'
and 19% office finish.
The petitioner for the appeal failed to provide the needed income and expense information for
the subject as requested. An income analysis was done using market rents, vacancy and CAP
rate. This analysis supports a value range of $7,300,000 to $7,500,000 ($59.84/sf to $61.48/sf).
Giving weight to both the sales comparables and the market derived income approach, we
recommend a value range of $7,300,000 to $7,500,000.
2021 Board of Appeal and Equalization Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC
Page 9 Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Property ID# 06-028-24-32-0008 Age & Condition 1960 - Average
2020 Mkt Value $6,000,000 GBA 121,985
2021 Mkt Value $6,780,000 Total Value vs. GBA $55.58
Land Size 240,881
Property Under Appeal -- 5100 35th Street W
Page 10 Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
1 Address 4521 State Hwy 7 Sale Date 12/15/2020
Property ID#06-028-24-12-0103 Age & Condition 1958-Average
Sale Price $8,100,000 GBA 91,024
Buyer Sela Investments, Ltd., LLP Sale Price per GBA $88.99
Seller Basic Properties LP Land Size 156,130
2 Address 4906 35th St W., etal Sale Date 9/11/2020
Property ID#06-028-24-31-0005; -0006; &-0007 Age & Condition 1962/63/66-Average
Sale Price $8,379,000 GBA 76,646
Buyer WSP Beltline, LLC Sale Price per GBA $109.32
Seller Belt Line Properties, Inc.Land Size 246,890
Comparable Sales
Page 11 Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
3 Address 4200 Park Glen Rd Sale Date 4/9/2020
Property ID#06-028-24-14-0097 Age & Condition 1987-Average
Sale Price $7,760,000 GBA 82,907
Buyer B9 Polar Park Glen Corp LLC Sale Price per GBA $93.60
Seller CSM Investors, Inc.Land Size 280,214
4 Address 7500 Meridian Cir N Sale Date 12/16/2019
Property ID#25-119-22-11-0009 Age & Condition 1996-Average
Sale Price $6,700,000 GBA 121,384
Buyer MIP 7500 Meridian, LLC Sale Price per GBA $55.20
Seller OfficeMax Incorporated Land Size 368,752
Page 12 Reconvene meeting of April 26 , 202 1
Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
Recommended 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
Pre pared by: Stacy Voelker, senior office assistant
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Presented to council April 26, 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)Board and Commission Annual Workplan Page 2Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
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)Board and Commission Annual Workplan Page 3Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
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 RecommandationBoard and Commission Annual Workplan Page 4Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
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: Page 5Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review
Page 8
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review
Recommended action: Please review the work plan 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 their 2021
annual reports to city council. Included at the end of the planning commission report is the
commission’s 2021 work plan, which the chair will briefly present to city council. The work plan
is will be the focus of the council discussion. The board of zoning appeals and planning
commission are separate bodies with different bylaws, responsibilities, and levels of authority .
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 work plan
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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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: 6009 Wayzata Blvd., 6112 14th St., 1345 Colorado Ave.
and 1341 Colorado Ave.
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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 18
Appendix B: 2021 Work Plan
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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 2021 (Item No. 2)
Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 27
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 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 requests 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 26, 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
cons tructed 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 26, 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 26, 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 iss ues
with the neighbors when the grade is raised around the house to match the higher first-floor
elevation. The commissioners discussed limiting changes to the first-floor elevation to no more
than one foot above the current grade as a reasonable limitatio n. It would allow some flexibility
Before After
Before After
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Zoning code size limits for houses
to make a basement more appealing for livable space, including ADUs, while also minimizing
the impact on the neighbors.
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 house.
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, which may include to draft an ordinance
establishing a maximum first -floor elevation increase for significant remodels and
reconstruction.
Study session meeting of April 26, 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 aske d where the two examples fall related to the ground floor ratio. Mr.
Morrison presented one specific block that staff identified that included buildings
adjacent 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 26, 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 26, 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 26, 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 regularly
scheduled study session on May 10, 2021.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study
session on May 10, 2021.
Also attached to this report is:
-Study session discussion topics and timeline
-Proposed topic for future study session discussion
Topic Proposed by Councilmember
Land acknowledgements Margaret Rog and Jake Spano
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – May 10
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Proposed topic for future study session discussion
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services of ficer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
MAY 10, 2021.
6:30 p.m. Special study session - To be held via videoconference
Tentative discussion items
1.Environment and sustainability commission workplan review – Building & energy (60
minutes)
Annual workplan update from the environment and sustainability commission.
2.Human rights commission workplan review – Administrative services (60 minutes)
Annual workplan update from the human rights commission.
3.2022 budget overview – Administrative services (60 minutes)
Staff will present a h igh -level overview of 2022 budget estimates in preparation for starting
the budget process.
4.Future study session agenda planning – administrative services (5 minutes)
Communications/meeting check-in – administrative services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Wri tten reports
5.P2 Inclusionary housing policy – requiring family size units
6.SWLRT PLACES art temporary installment locations
7.Perspectives update
Study session meeting of April 26, 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
(written report)
3 Public process expectations and
outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for
undertaking this discussion. 2nd qtr. 2021
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 In process 4/26/21
9 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is researching options. 2nd qtr. 2021
11 STEP discussion: facilities STEP has entered into purchase agreement
for two adjacent properties. On hold
+ Vehicle idling ESC is reviewing and will provide
recommendation 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
4
Creating pathways to home
ownership for BIPOC individuals
and families
Discussed at 2/8/21 council meeting.
Program being developed. In process (June)
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
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: March 2021 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action is required.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reporting is part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year.
Financial or budget considerations: Expenditures should generally be at 25% of the annual
budget at the end of March. General fund expenditures are under budget through March at
21.25% of budget .
Organized recreation continues to show a temporary overage due to payment of the annual
community education contribution of $187,400 to the school district in January, which is
consistent with prior years. Engineering has a variance due to a lesser portion of staff hours
allocated to projects in the first quarter prior to the start of the construction season.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures – General Fund
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of March 31, 2021 20212021201920192020202020212021Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Unaudited Budget YTD MarRemaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,635,694$ 29,601,811$ -$29,601,811$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 5,288,380 4,621,829 1,541,643 3,080,186 33.36% Fines & Forfeits279,700 274,340 280,000 129,314 231,000 25,554 205,446 11.06% Intergovernmental1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 2,032,454 1,661,549 390,772 1,270,777 23.52% Charges for Services2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,583,210 2,013,834 246,288 1,767,546 12.23% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 1,159,728 1,499,091 402,175 1,096,916 26.83% Transfers In1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 1,982,338 2,055,017 508,004 1,547,013 24.72% Investment Earnings 180,000 523,124 210,000 455,173 200,000 200,000 0.00% Other Income31,300 57,274 621,280 759,772 593,300 195,103 398,197 32.88% Use of Fund Balance298,156 230,026 25,000 25,000 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 42,026,064$ 42,502,431$ 3,309,540$ 39,192,891$ 7.79%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 1,497,099$ 1,842,882$ 259,664$ 1,583,218$ 14.09% Finance1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 1,182,523 1,129,591 238,142 891,449 21.08% Assessing772,746 751,737 808,171 788,366 798,244 190,017 608,227 23.80% Human Resources805,620 756,767 823,209 796,088 837,736 199,862 637,874 23.86% Community Development1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,536,657 1,576,323 354,404 1,221,919 22.48% Facilities Maintenance1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 1,410,607 1,349,365 284,646 1,064,719 21.09% Information Resources1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,647,366 1,683,216 377,820 1,305,396 22.45% Communications & Marketing805,674 786,448 828,004 712,542 970,934 173,330 797,604 17.85%Total General Government9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 9,571,247$ 10,188,291$ 2,077,886$ 8,110,405$ 20.39% Public Safety: Police10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 10,677,639$ 11,307,863$ 2,578,792$ 8,729,071$ 22.81% Fire Protection4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 4,854,824 4,998,636 1,143,170 3,855,466 22.87% Building 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 2,312,616 2,571,968 551,283 2,020,685 21.43%Total Public Safety17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 17,845,079$ 18,878,467$ 4,273,244$ 14,605,223$ 22.64% Operations: Public Works Administration290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 219,984$ 249,256$ 40,779$ 208,477$ 16.36% Public Works Operations3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 3,170,181 3,285,820 718,612 2,567,208 21.87% Vehicle Maintenance1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 1,188,426 1,303,159 274,081 1,029,078 21.03% Engineering570,377 609,567 551,285 784,399 523,547 158,428 365,119 30.26%Total Operations5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 5,362,990$ 5,361,782$ 1,191,899$ 4,169,883$ 22.23% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 1,368,426 1,639,358 445,190 1,194,168 27.16% Recreation Center1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,874,992 2,082,697 360,528 1,722,169 17.31% Park Maintenance1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,804,905 1,916,643 379,106 1,537,537 19.78% Westwood Nature Center643,750 612,266 748,683 606,100 736,515 142,100 594,415 19.29% Natural Resources484,784 429,409 504,143 433,362 496,497 31,620 464,877 6.37%Total Parks and Recreation6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 6,087,785$ 6,871,710$ 1,358,544$ 5,513,166$ 19.77% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$4,592$ 314,077$ 272,994$ 341,293$ 71,497$ 269,796$ 20.95% Sustainability26,283 497,484 245,461 432,043 64,795 367,248 15.00% Transfers Out300,000 428,845 0.00% Contingency and Other74,350 121,245 144,860 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 663,314$ 1,202,181$ 136,292$ 637,044$ 11.34%Total General Fund Expenditures39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 39,530,415$ 42,502,431$ 9,037,866$ 33,035,720$ 21.26%Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 5) Title: March 2021 monthly financial reportPage 2
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management
policies .
Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield.
Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at March 31, 2021 is $62.8 million
compared to $81.6 million at the end of 2020. This decrease is normal in the first quarter due to
payment of the February 1 debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments from the
December tax settlement. Approximately $33.3 million of the portfolio is invested in longer
term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds and municipal debt
securities. The remaining $29.5 million is held in money market accounts for bond projects and
operating cash flow needs between property tax settlements. The overall yield to maturity
increased to .95% from .73% the prior quarter. Interest rates on money markets remain near
zero and 4 year Treasury securities purchased during the quarter had rates to maturity of
between .32% and .58%.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Investment portfolio summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)
Discussion
Background: The city’s investment portfolio is focused on cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment
policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment.
Present considerations: The portfolio value decre ased by approximately $18.8 million in the
first quarter to $62.8 at March 31, 2021 from $81.6 million at December 31, 2020. A large
amount of cash was needed in the first quarter for the February 1 debt service and pay as you
go TIF note payments in addition to the normal cashflow requirements for payroll and
operations which decreased money market balances.
The overall yield to maturity increased to .95% from .73% at the end of 2020. This is the
combined yield including both the funds held in money market accounts and long-term
investments, so the increase is attributable primarily to the spend down of cash in the lower
yielding money market accounts. Interest rates on money markets are near zero. The overall
yield remains higher than the two-year Treasury of .16% on March 31, 2021, which is a typical
benchmark used by cities for yield comparison of their overall portfolio , because some of the
older securities in the portfolio have higher yields to maturity .
There was $29.5 million in money market accounts at the end of March, approximately half of
which is bond proceeds for construction and utility projects. The remaining $33.3 million of the
portfolio is invested in long er term securities includ ing municipal bonds ($1.3 mil), Federal
agency bonds ($6.4 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes ($25.6 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by
states, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are
issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank and Fannie Mae .
One agency bond matured during the quarter. The proceeds from the maturity were reinvested
along with approximately $5 million of money market cash. The Treasury securities that were
purchased have rates to maturity ranging from .32% to .58% and maturity dates between
12/31/2024 and 6/30/2025.
This table summarizes the City’s portfolio at March 31, 2021:
Ne xt steps: None at this time.
12/31/20 3/31/21
<1 Year 76% 60%
1-2 Years 11% 15%
2-3 Years 4% 6%
3-4 Years 7% 12%
>4 Years 2% 7%
12/31/20 3/31/21
Money Markets/Cash $53,362,125 $29,538,388
Commercial Paper $0 $0
Certificates of Deposit $0 $0
Municipal Debt $1,344,538 $1,336,321
Agencies/Treasuries $26,909,467 $31,911,020
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
March 31, 2021
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP
Maturity
Date
Yield To
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
3/31/2021
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
4M Liquid Asset Money Market 0.02%1,175,135 1,175,135 235
4M Plus Money Market 0.05%10,001,272 10,001,272 5,001
UBS Institutional Money Market 0.01% 2,027,731 2,027,731 203
UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds)0.01% 16,334,250 16,334,250 1,633
29,538,388
PFM Muni Debt - California State Txble GO Bonds 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 450,000 12,600
PFM Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO Bonds 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 207,532 3,520
PFM Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO Bonds 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 678,789 13,845
1,336,321
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 500,410 12,750
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,603,440 32,320
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 704,242 19,320
PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 752,325 9,375
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 650,000 655,233 11,245
PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,159,258 21,275
PFM FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 761,700 22,650
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 704,865 12,040
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 578,996 9,430
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 201,390 3,700
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 407,924 10,600
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 509,530 10,600
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 815,248 17,440
PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,324,778 34,970
PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 430,000 438,785 11,868
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 925,000 956,728 25,715
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,637,465 64,005
PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,732,453 42,713
PFM FHLB 3130AJ7E3 02/17/2023 1.44% 620,000 633,913 8,928
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,030,700 25,300
PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 360,745 6,405
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 75,000 77,634 1,163
PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 465,804 6,660
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0V34 02/05/2024 2.58% 475,000 504,517 12,255
PFM FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 531,645 12,900
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 600,000 630,375 9,300
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,600,000 1,680,659 26,560
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.85% 260,000 273,122 2,210
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.36% 350,000 367,665 4,760
PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,208,041 19,090
PFM FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 181,214 2,713
PFM US Treasury Note 912828YY0 12/31/2024 0.32% 1,900,000 1,981,339 6,080
PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0X24 01/07/2025 1.69% 650,000 674,934 10,985
PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEP0 02/12/2025 1.52% 750,000 775,035 11,400
PFM US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.36% 150,000 146,907 540
PFM US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.58% 725,000 710,051 4,205
PFM US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.39% 3,300,000 3,231,954 12,870
31,911,020
GRAND TOTAL 62,785,729 593,375
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.95%
Page 3 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 6)
Title: First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Redistricting update
Recommended action: None. The purpose of the report is to provide council with an update on
the statewide redistricting process.
Policy consideration: Does the strategy/process outlined related to redistricting meet the
council’s expectations? Does the council need any additional information at this time?
Summary: Redistricting is the process of redrawing boundaries of election districts to ensure
that the people of each district are equally represented. This process is done following the
decennial census to account for population shifts. In Minnesota, the legislature is responsible
for drawing boundaries related to the state’s congressional, senate, house, and Metropolitan
Council districts. Local governments are responsible for redistricting other election districts.
County boards are responsible for redistricting county commissioner districts. School boards
are responsible for redistricting board member districts. City councils are responsible for
redistricting city wards and precinct boundaries.
Due to COVID-19, the delivery of census data to states has been significantly delayed. Currently ,
it is expected that data will not be received until late September 2021. The delay in receipt of
the data by the legislature impacts the redistricting process at every level of government. The
city cannot redistrict wards before the state redistricting plan is adopted. Because the technical
process of redistricting is based solely on census data, the timelines related to this process have
been altered. Exact dates and timelines have not been released by the state since the delay in
census data was announced. It is anticipated that most of the technical work will take place in
2022 on a condensed timeline . Elections staff continue to closely monitor information and will
be prepared to lead council through this process.
Elections staff is currently waiting for additional legal guidance from the county and the state
regarding whether the city will need to take formal action to reestablish existing ward and
precinct boundaries prior to the 2021 election. It appears that statute only requires cities of the
first class (more than 100,000 in population) to complete this prior to the 2021 election,
however we are awaiting final determination on this given the delay at the state level. Because
we will not have the data required to change any existing boundaries, we anticipate that the
current ward and precinct boundaries will remain in effect for the 2021 election. The city would
then move forward with the redistricting process in 2022.
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: Discussion
Prepared by: Michael Sund, elections specialist
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Redistricting update
Discussion
What is the redistricting authority of the city council?
•The city charter requires the council to redetermine ward boundaries after each
decennial census of the United States; and that the four ward boundaries shall be
adopted by ordinance based on findings of the council that the wards are of as near
equal size in both population and area as practicable.
•State statute also requires cities to establish precinct boundaries. This is done by
resolution.
What will be included in the redistricting process?
•Administratively, this process will be coordinated by elections staff with assistance from
G eographic Information System (GIS). We have developed a plan for data acquisition
and the corresponding GIS work that will need to occur to review population data and
census block boundaries and identify any necessary or suggested boundary adjustments
for presentation to the council. Elections staff will develop an exact timeline for council
to complete this process once more definitive information is known regarding the
state’s timeline.
•Additionally, elections staff plans to engage in a large scale public process to solicit and
collect both qualitative and quantitative data from the community that will help inform
discussions related to how we plan to meet the needs of St. Louis Park voters
operationally over the course of the next 10 years. This will include information we
already know about voting trends (when, where, how people vote) and overall
participation, as well as information we want to learn more about and measure over
time such as how people feel about voting in St. Louis Park, how they engage in
elections, and barriers to participation.
Strategy for redistricting process
•Throughout the redistricting process elections staff is taking into consideration the
council’s strategic priorities and the opportunity for a public engagement.
Race equity and inclusion: The redrawing of political boundaries can have long term
consequences on communities of color and interest within any jurisdiction. Historically,
political boundaries have been used to intentionally disenfranchise or support certain
groups of voters. In recognition of this fact we will use census data and qualitative
analysis in the information presented to council for approval of boundaries. This will
include supporting documentation and a race equity analysis of the boundary options.
Outreach and community engagement: Our work over the past two years to establish
relationships within the community will continue with this process. We have flexible
plans in place that will allow us to complete this work through meaningful interactions
and conversations with community members and organizations regardless of how the
circumstances of the pandemic may change over time. This outreach effort will include
but is not limited to local institutions, neighborhood organizations, senior living
communities, multi-family homes, students (future voters), and traditionally
underrepresented populations. We have already started the process of informing and
updating the community through regular communications regarding the redistricting
process. Our goal is to solicit feedback from those impacted by changes to boundaries or
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Redistricting update
polling locations so you can fully understand the potential impacts and/or unintended
consequences of the boundary options that will be presented. This strategy will largely
mimic the public process used by other divisions when a specific project affects a
specific group of residents. Targeted mailings, online public forums, in person events,
and interactive mapping are a few examples of the methods we will use to engage
residents and allow people to provide input on the boundary changes that affect them
and how it impacts their participation in and overall engagement with elections.
Preliminary research:
Several factors can be considered in the drawing of ward boundaries. Generally, a district best
serves voters when it has characteristics like being compact (the shortest possible boundary),
does not cross major physical barriers like rivers and railways, and one that is logical to the
average person residing in it.
Additional factors we will consider include accessibility of walking , bik ing, public transit, and
car. Each precinct will be analyzed by factoring in the time it would take the average resident to
reach their polling location by each modality. This will be presented as a chronological
measurement that will be compared to standards developed in peer reviewed research on the
potential impacts of a given length of a trip to the polling place.1
Two long term factors affecting this process in many communities nationally are the number
and quality of public spaces that can serve as a polling location and the increased use of early in
person voting to cast a ballot prior to Election Day. When a voter casts a ballot in person prior
to Election Day they go to one central location, in our case city hall, and the distance to that
location is a fixed factor regardless of how their individual precinct is drawn.
Preliminary staff analysis:
•Number of polling locations – Currently there are 16 precincts in St. Louis Park. In the
past the city has maintained different numbers of precincts, however, there have been
16 (four precincts per ward) since 2010. Each ward is required to contain roughly the
same number of people. A specific precinct population can be any size in which
elections can be administered efficiently. The city is required to provide a polling
location for each precinct. All the required Election Day equipment and supplies are
maintained, prepared, and allocated for each precinct. This includes ballot counters,
assistive voting devices, electronic pollbooks, voting booths, signage, ballots, required
forms/envelopes and supplies for election workers. To serve voters these locations
must be accessible 2, open to the public, able to be secured, have ample parking, and,
most importantly, willing, and available for use as a polling location. Considerations to
alter the number of precincts should be carefully considered with all these factors in
mind in addition to the ease of use by voters within the precinct. In recent years it has
become increasingly difficult to find facilities that meet the necessary criteria and are
willing to be used as a polling location. Concerns regarding safety and security at
1 Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, and Maxwell Palmer. "Driving Turnout: The Effect of Car
Ownership on Electoral Participation." HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP20-032,
October 2020.
2 “Disability and Voting Accessibility in the 2020 Elections” https://www.eac.gov/election-
officials/us -election -assistance-commission-study-disability -and-voting-accessibility -2020
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 4
Title: Redistricting update
facilities with concurrent uses have increased as elections have become more frequent,
contentious, and divisive events. The availability of viable facilities is a concern for
future elections.
•Public Engagement Process – Because the final boundaries must be based on census
data, changes to boundaries could be relatively minor. As a fully built out city the need
to rebalance precincts to ensure efficient delivery of services may require only
moderate adjustments to precinct boundaries. While it is now technically possibly to
create computer generated maps which exactly divide populations, they tend to ignore
walkability and livability factors that the average voter would quickly recognize. For this
reason, while we will use technology to assist in the creation of maps, we also intend to
use this event as a method of public outreach on our elections process. Much like a
series of small area plans any adjustments to boundaries will be discussed with the
people they will affect. We are unsure of the level of engagement and interest we will
experience from residents in this process, however we will seek input through a variety
of outlets and ensure that we are providing ample opportunity for residents to engage
and provide input.
•Council involvement – Over the course of the summer, elections staff will provide the
council with updates and information on the most critical factors that should be
considered when making decisions related to redistricting. The idea is to prepare council
and provide information that will allow for our qualitative process and analysis to be as
near to completion as possible upon receipt of census data. In this way we will be able
to enter data and quickly generate maps with boundary options based on your direction
and understanding from prior meetings. This sort of ‘plug and play’ approach will allow
us to complete the process within statutory timelines and recognize that we have a local
election to administer in 2021.
Conclusions/goal s:
•To prepare council and engage residents within the framework of the city’s strategic
priorities on the impacts and outcomes of redistricting.
•To u se census data to create a ward and precinct map which respects the broadest
possible group of concerns related to voter participation and engagement and that will
simultaneously allow the city to effectively and efficiently serve voters over the next ten
years.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 8
Executive summary
Title: Sustainability division update for Q2 2021
Recommended action: No action is required at this time.
Policy consideration: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have .
Summary: This report is to provide a quarterly update to council with a high -level overview of
the projects and programs that the division has completed, is currently working on, and is
planning.
•Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance
o Data collection/entry period underway for 2020 energy data (due June 1)
•Solar Sundown
o Administering program; 37% toward 1 MW goal (8 residential and 4 commercial)
•Climate Champions
o Planning launch with Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Energy Smart program
o Executing communications plan
•Green Building Policy (in collaboration with Community Development)
o Finalizing draft of suggested policy changes for council consideration
•Energy Assistance
o Created matrix of energy assistance programs to better identify program gaps
for future policy work, opportunities for partnership
•Electric vehicles
o Serving on Technical Advisory Committee that will provide input on two electric
vehicle planning studies underway
•GreenStep Cities
o Compiled and submitted annual inventory to reach Step 5 (June notification)
•Anti-idling research
o Assisting Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) with research on
anti-idling ordinances, policies, and campaigns
•Earth Day/Month
o Collaborated with ESC to create videos and social media posts to promote Earth
Month
•City facilities
o Assisting with scoping energy saving/generating projects at Rec Center
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 9
Executive summary
Title: Freight rail switching wye
Recommended action: No action necessary.
Policy consideration: There is no policy consideration at this time. The report is provided for
information purposes.
Summary: The freight switching wye is located in the Oxford Industrial Park area north of
Methodist Hospital east of Louisiana Avenue. The wye facilitates movements for trains moving
between the east-west rail line and the north-south rail line . The switching wye is operational;
however, the north leg will be removed as a part of SWLRT as a new bridge connection is being
constructed. At present, there is minimal switching activity occurring on the wye.
The new freight bridge being constructed as part of the SWLRT will connect the two lines thus
facilitating the movement between the lines and eliminating the many movements currently
required for the f reight switching.
There is one freight customer that is presently served by the southern leg of the wye located at
the eastern end of the line. This business operation will not be affected by the removal of the
north leg of the wye and the construction of the new freight rail bridge.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
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.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, principal planner
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Freight rail switching wye
Discussion
Background: In 2010-11 when the SWLRT Green Line Extension was being engineered and
planned, it became apparent that a portion of the CP Freight rail used to switch trains between
two rail lines in St. Louis Park would need to be re -routed. The freight switching wye is located
to the south of the Louisiana SWLRT Station and facilitates trains moving between the east-
west rail line and the north-south rail line east of Louisiana Avenue. The freight lines are at
different elevations and require switching in the Oxford Industrial Park to move from one line
to the other. The switching wye is still in place and operational, however there is minimal
switching activity.
Switching operation: A new freight bridge is being built with the new SWLRT line to provide
better train movements between lines and accommodate the light rail. Currently, to switch
from the east-west rail to the north-south rail line, trains stop east of Wooddale Avenue and
unhitch several cars at a time from the full train (1 on drawing below ) and are pushed or pulled
on the switching track (2) to the west of Louisiana (3). They are then pushed or pulled back east
on the south part of the wye (4) to get on to the north-south track (5). This is a very
cumbersome, inefficient, time -consuming, and noisy means of switching rail lines.
The north portion of the wye has been acquired for the SWLRT project and will be removed
when the new freight bridge is built and operational. The south spur of the wye will remain and
serves one building to the west at 7101 Oxford Street.
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 9 ) Page 3
Title: Freight rail switching wye
New bridge to replace switching movements: To accommodate the LRT station and both
freight and light rail movement, the SWLRT Project Office (SPO) purchased the northern half of
the wye property and is constructing a bridge for the freight trains to connect directly to the
north-south line. When trains arrive on the north -south line, they will be able to go either
direction as shown below.
The new bridge will provide a smooth, sweeping movement for the freight rail to meet with the
north-south line, eliminate both traffic blocking issues at Wooddale, and the noise of switching
train cars.
When the freight bridge becomes operational, the north switching wye tracks and operations
will be removed. LRT trains will travel underneath the new freight bridge and the existing north-
south freight bridge .
New freight bridge movement
Depiction of new freight bridge
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 9 ) Page 4
Title: Freight rail switching wye
South spur: The southern half of the freight rail wye will not be removed as a part of the SWLRT
project. It exclusively serves the Robert B. Hill water treatment business at the west end of the
spur. The company receives a train shipment approximately once a week. However, due to
flooding in the area and needed stormwater management, the city and watershed district may
pursue acquisition of the building and relocation of the business in the future, which would
likely result in the southern spur being removed, as well.
South spur of wye
Robert B. Hill Company Building
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 10
Executive summary
Title: Development update
Recommended action: None. This report is for information purposes.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: The attached quarterly report summarizes the status of various development
projects occurring in the city. Its purpose is to apprise council/EDA members of the progress
being made on various development projects, anticipated construction commencement and
completion dates as well as future required actions.
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
(Any documents hyperlinked in this report are available in the
community development department for review.)
Prepared by: Economic development and planning staff
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager, EDA executive director
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10 ) Page 2
Title: Development update
Discussion
Present considerations: The following is a status update on major development projects
occurring within the city. A developments projects map and description of all development
projects may be found on the city’s web site.
Proposed developments
•Aldersgate Methodist Church (3801 Wooddale Ave. S.): Staff has met with a developer
interested in redeveloping the site. No formal applications have been submitted at this
time.
•Beltline Boulevard station site (4601 and 4725 State Hwy. 7): Developer Sherman
Associates is meeting regularly with staff to discuss site and building plans, project
components, economics, and financial assistance, as well as infrastructure
coordination with city, county and SWLRT agencies. The developer anticipates
submitting planning applications in fourth quarter 2021 or early 2022. In the
meantime, the developer will request that its’ Preliminary Development Agreement
with the EDA be extended until next year to provide time to secure all necessary formal
approvals. Such a request is tentatively scheduled for consideration June 21, 2021. This
development also requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). City council
will be requested to issue a resolution allowing the publication of the EAW in June
2021.
•Beltline South (3440 Beltline Blvd.): Opus Group has submitted planning and TIF
applications for a five-story, 250-unit mixed-use development with approximately 7,700
square feet of ground floor commercial space. The developer will continue working with
staff on these applications. Formal consideration of the planning applications is likely
to occur at the end of May/ early June followed by city council consideration.
•Minnetonka Blvd redevelopment (5707 – 5639 Minnetonka Blvd.): Staff is working with
prospective developer GMHC (Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation) and the
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) on site and building plans,
project components and economics, alley relocation, as well as necessary financial
assistance needed to bring the six to eight-unit, affordable home-ownership
development to fruition. It is anticipated that project plans could be presented to council
by fourth quarter 2021.
•Nordic Ware Building 9 expansion (5005 County Road 25): The second reading of the
easement vacation ordinance and zoning text amendment ordinance was on the April
19, 2021 consent agenda. Once approved, the project team will apply for building
permits with the intention of starting construction spring 2021.
•Park Place Plaza addition (5699 16th St. W.): Bianco Properties is requesting an
amendment to the Park Place Plaza PUD to construct a 7,000 square foot retail building.
The application is scheduled for a public hearing before the planning commission on
May 5.
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10 ) Page 3
Title: Development update
•Rise on 7 (8115 State Hwy . 7): Developer Common Bond recently submitted planning
and TIF applications. It will continue working with staff on these applications. Formal
consideration of the applications is likely to occur June 2021. Common Bond also held a
neighborhood meeting recently to share its plans with the surrounding residents and
businesses.
•SLP Living (formerly known as Platia Place, 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.): Mortenson
Construction was seeking greater TIF assistance than EDA staff determined was
necessary to provide a reasonable rate of return and bring the project to
fruition. Mortenson therefore chose not to proceed with this project and withdrew its
planning applications. Property owner, Bill Stoddard, is seeking a new development
partner for the site.
•Wooddale Station redevelopment site (5950 W. 36th St .) Co-developers Saturday
Properties and Anderson Companies are meeting regularly with staff to discuss site and
building plans, project components, economics, and financial assistance as well as
coordination with city and SWLRT infrastructure. The developers anticipate
submitting formal applications first or second quarter 2022. The developers are
proceeding with negotiations to acquire the adjacent property to the east, per their
submitted proposal. The city is in the process of rezoning the site from a PUD to MX -1,
to remove all of the zoning requirements for a previously proposed development. This
action will be coming to city council in June 2021.
Approved developments
•Arlington Row — East & West (7705 Wayzata Blvd . and 7905 Wayzata Blvd .): Melrose
Company received planning approvals to develop two properties along the south side of
Wayzata Blvd. Development of both sites has incurred delays. Construction
commencement is indefinite at this time.
•Best Cleaners (8105 Minnetonka Blvd.): Council voted to deny an additional time
extension for the property owner to act on the approved planning applications. The
applicant may reapply for the CUP and variance and amend their plans to meet current
zoning requirements if they so choose.
•Bremer Bank (7924 State Hwy. 7): Council approved a time extension for
developer, Frauenshuh, to act on the conditional use permit. The deadline to act on the
application has been extended to June 15, 2022.
•Luxe Residential (5235 Wayzata Blvd./former Olive Garden site): This last apartment
project in the Central Park West development received all necessary planning approvals.
It has subsequently incurred some delays and construction commencement is
undetermined at this time.
•Parkway Residences (West 31st St . between Inglewood Ave . and Glenhurst Ave.):
Construction of Phase I (Parkway Place) is currently underway and is expected to be
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10 ) Page 4
Title: Development update
completed by April 30, 2022. Phase II started construction mid-April 2021, and Phase III
is expected to commence by April 30, 2022.
•Texa-Tonka Apartments (7916 Minnetonka Blvd. and 2939 to 2901 Texas Ave .): Paster
Properties received all necessary planning and TIF approvals for this development. In
the coming months the developer expects to close on its project financing and property
acquisition. Construction is required to begin by October 31, 2021 and be substantially
completed by October 31, 2023.
•Union Park Flats (Union Congregational Church) (3700 Alabama Ave .): Project received
all necessary planning approvals in July 2020. Developer PPL is currently assembling
funding for the project. Once completed, PPL will finalize its request to the EDA for TIF
assistance and establishment of a housing TIF district. It will then proceed with the final
architectural work needed for building permits. Construction is estimated to start in fall
2022.
Under construction/recently completed
•10 West End (1601 Utica Ave. S .) Office building completed, and tenants are actively
being secured. Thus far, two tenants, HDR and CarVal, have signed long term leases in
the building. Future adjacent office building, 20 West End, is expected to commence
construction on September 30, 2024 pending lease commitments from prospective
anchor tenants.
•Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center (4450 Excelsior Blvd.): Headquarter office building
completed in summer 2020 and commercial tenants have been secured. Hazelwood
Food & Drink restaurant opened in April 2021.
•The Quentin (4900 Cedar Lake Rd.): The project is well under construction and on
schedule to be completed by December 31, 2021, as required under the re development
contract.
•The Elmwood (5605 36th St . W.): Development received its Temporary Occupancy
Permit in March and has been actively leasing up. The project expects to receive its final
certificate of occupancy by summer 2021. One commercial tenant, Excelsior & Grand
Chiropractic, has been secured and the remaining commercial space is likely to be
occupied by the developer’s business offices
•Nordic Ware (5005 State Hwy. 7): Construction on the manufacturing and warehouse
expansion (Building 8) is underway at the Nordic Ware campus and is expected to be
complete by fall 2021.
•Via Sol (PLACE) (5855 State Hwy . 7): Construction on the apartment building and
commercial space has been halted, presumably due to financial issues. Staff has
reached out to the development team to request a status update and determination as
to when construction may resume. Up until this week, construction on the apartment
building and commercial space had been proceeding and apartment preleasing was
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10 ) Page 5
Title: Development update
occurring in anticipation of a summer opening. Construction on the adjacent E-
Generation building has not yet begun but was anticipated to be completed by
December 31, 2021, per the redevelopment agreement. City Council will be asked to
amend the PLACE PUD in June 2021 to remove all language pertaining to the Wooddale
Station Site.
•XChange Medical Office (6111 Wayzata Blvd .): Davis Group’s three -story, Class A,
medical office development fronting I-394 is well underway and is expected to be
completed by fall 2021. Ear Nose & Throat Specialty Care (ENTSC) and Surgical Care
Affiliates (SCA) will anchor the 78,996 -square foot medical office building.
Next steps: Please contact economic development or planning staff with any questions.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: April 26, 2021
Written report: 11
Executive summary
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline B oulevard
Recommended action: Please provide staff with feedback on the proposed redevelopment.
Policy consideration:
•Is the city council generally supportive of the proposed redevelopment concept?
•Is the city council willing to consider a rezoning to a planned unit development?
•Is the EDA willing to consider providing tax increment financing for this project?
Summary: Opus Group has a purchase agreement for 3440 Beltline Boulevard . The developer is
looking to redevelop the site and construct a five story, 250-unit mixed -use building with 7,463
square feet of commercial space and six live/work units on the ground floor fronting Beltline
Boulevard. Due to high ground water and floodplain, parking will be provided in a three -story
above ground ramp and in a 27-stall surface parking lot. The housing would be mixed income
with 10% of the units affordable at 50% area median income (AMI), meeting the city’s
inclusionary housing policy requirements. Several three -bedroom units are included in the
proposal to assist in city council’s goals for family -sized housing.
The development would be subject to the city’s green building policy. In addition, photovoltaic
panels are proposed on the building’s roof and the developer is exploring LEED and B3 options
for their sustainability program .
The developer has submitted applications for a preliminary and final plat, a preliminary and
final planned unit development, and an easement vacation. A traffic study is underway. The
developer will hold a neighborhood meeting in May , and planning commission will hold a public
hearing at the end of May/early June.
Financial or budget considerations: The developer indicates there are extraordinary costs
associated with the proposed redevelopment site and building which preclude the project from
achieving a market rate of return. Consequently, the developer intends to apply for tax
increment financing assistance through the establishment of a redevelopment TIF district.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to provid ing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Development concept plans
(Any documents hyperlinked in the report are available in the
community development department for review.)
Prepared by: 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 26, 2021 (Item No. 11 ) Page 2
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard
Discussion
Site information: The proposed redevelopment site is located at 3440 Beltline Boulevard, on
the west side of Beltline Boulevard, south of Park Glen Road and north of 35th Street West. The
site is in the Wolfe Park neighborhood.
Site area: 3.49 acres
Current uses: Business park uses – including Kenwood Gymnastics
2040 Comprehensive Plan: TOD – transit-oriented development
Current zoning: MX-1 - vertical mixed use
Proposed zoning: PUD - planned unit development
Surrounding land uses: North: Business Park uses
East: Bass Lake Preserve
West: Business Park uses – including Steel Toe Brewery
South: Business Park uses – Comcast offices and fitness
studios
Site Map:
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11 ) Page 3
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard
Background: This site has long be en held by the McCain family. During their ownership tenure,
this area has unde rgone many changes from heavy industrial, to a business park, and then in
2019 this s ite’s land use was reguided to transit-oriented development and the site was
rezoned to MX 1 v ertical mixed -use. The McCain f amily h as anticipat ed these changes, and all
tenant’s leases expire on or before June 30, 2021.
The McCain family has decide d to sell this property and has entered into purchase agreement
with Opus Group who wishes to redevelop the site into a mixed-use, mixed-incom e, transit-
oriented development, which achieves the city’s goals and v isions for the site based on previous
plans for the area.
In 2012, the city created the Beltline Station area framework and design guidelines which
id entifi ed Beltline Boul evard as a transit -oriented street, since it is the primary north-south link
for all transportation to the Beltline LRT Station. The plan states that development along
Beltline Boulevard should “…focus on higher de nsity buildings that bring more pe ople, residents
and employ ees, to liv e and w ork w ithin walking distance o f the Beltline Transit Station. Taller
buildings for o ffice, resid ential, and mixed use (resid ential or office above retail) are
appropriate along Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa. All buildings on properties adjacent to Beltline
Boulevard should be street-oriented w ith minimal building s etb acks, entry doors and windows
along the street.”
Present considerations: Opus G roup has a purchase agreement for 3440 Beltline Boulevard.
The developer proposes to redevelop the site and construct a five story, 250-unit mi xed -use
building with 7,463 square feet of commercial space. Due to high ground water and floodplain,
parking will be provided in a three -story above ground ramp and in a small surface parking lot.
The plans provide a mixed of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three -bedroom units,
including six live/work units located on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard.
The developer requests the city rezone the site from MX-1 v ertical mi xed us e, which allows up
to 75 units per acre, to a PUD planned unit development. A rezoning to a PUD would allow the
site to build the higher density allow ed in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan transit-oriented
development land use category, which allows up to 125 units p er acre.
The developer utilize d the Beltline Station Area framework and design guidelines when
preparing their development proposal.
Green building policy: The development w ill be required to meet the city’s green building
policy . The developer proposes a photovoltaic array on the building’s roof and w ill be in stalling
electric v ehicle charging stations. The de veloper is exploring LEED and B3 options for their
sustainability p rogram , which m ay include the following: LED lighting, low VOC m at erials,
construction waste recycling, high er efficiency HV AC systems, low f low f i xtures, and recycled
content materials. In addition, the s ite is in close proximity to t he s outhw est light rail Beltline
Boulevard station.
Inclusionary housing: The developer must meet the city’s inclusionary housing policy because
of t h eir requests for a planned unit development and tax increment financing. The developer
proposes 10 percent of the units be affordable to households at 50 percent area median
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11 ) Page 4
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard
income (AMI), which meets the city’s inclusionary housing policy requirements. Per the
Metropolitan Council, 50 percent AMI for a family of four is $51,700. Monthly rental rates at 50
percent AMI are presently $970 for a one -bedroom unit and $1,163 for a two-bedroom unit.
Next steps: The developer applied for preliminary and final plat, preliminary and final planned
unit development, an easement vacation and tax increment financing. The developer will hold a
neighborhood meeting in May. The planning commission will hold a public hearing at the end of
May or early June. The applications will then be brought to the city council and EDA for
consideration.
The applicant is seeking to close on the property and begin construction by the end of the year.
The anticipated completion date is July 2023.
2 BR
2 BR2 BR2 BR
E / D
L/W L/W L/W L/W L/W ST
RETAIL
1 BR
1 BR
1 BR
ELEV
LOBBY
1 BR1 BR
RETAIL
MAIL/PKG
EXTERIOR AMENITY 18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"UP
MOVE-IN/LOADING1 BR
ELEC
TRASH TERRACES AT LEVEL 127 OUTDOOR SPACES
E/D
TERRACES & GARDEN WALL AT L-1
LEASING
L/W E/D2 BR
ST
1 BR
1 BR
GATED AMENITY
ENTRY/EXIT
LOBBY/
LEASING
EASEMENT
30' - 0"20' - 0"RETAIL PATIO
AND ENTRY
L/W PATIO AND
ENTRY (TYP)
AUTO
ENTRY
18' - 0"24' - 0"190' - 0"24' - 0"
ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE:
1'-0" FROM EDGE OF TRAIL
ASSUMED 4'-0"
EASEMENT LINEST
PATIO
20' - 0"HC
1 BR+
PATIO
WTR
ROOM
CLUB LIVING
FITNESS
YOGA
ONE
WAY
RAMP
882ENHANCED PAVINGFLUSH CURB
STOR.
1 BR1 BR+
ST
20' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 0"
WM
ELEV
LOBBY
MECH.
FUTURE EV CHARGING STALLS (QTY 10)EV CHARGING STALLS (QTY 10)
BIKE ROOM
BIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKING
34' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"60' - 6"30' - 0"6' - 0"1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR ST
ST
ST SLOPE UPSHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
Opus Design Build, L.L.C.
Opus AE Group, L.L.C.
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110
952-656-4444
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110
952-656-4444
PLOT DATE:PROJECT
PROJECT NUMBER
CONSULTANT
REGISTRATION
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
PROJECT MANAGER
DATE
PROJECT ADDRESS
4/19/2021 4:20:18 PMConcept Level 1
A.01
3440 Beltline
Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN
31815000
D. Newins
T. Grothe
T. Callahan
04/19/21
0'100'25'50'
ISSUE RECORD
2021-04-19 PUD Submittal 1
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11)
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard Page 5
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11)
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard Page 6
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NUMBER
Opus Design Build, L.L.C.
Opus AE Group, L.L.C.
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110
952-656-4444
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110
952-656-4444
PLOT DATE:PROJECT
PROJECT NUMBER
CONSULTANT
REGISTRATION
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
PROJECT MANAGER
DATE
PROJECT ADDRESS
4/19/2021 4:20:30 PMProject Images
A.09
3440 Beltline
Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN
31815000
D. Newins
T. Grothe
T. Callahan
04/19/21
Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.
View of West Side
Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.
View Toward the North
Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.
View of South Side
Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.
View of North Side
ISSUE RECORD
2021-04-19 PUD Submittal 1
Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11)
Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard Page 7