The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017/09/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Municipal Service Center (7305 Oxford St.) Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 2 & 9, 2017 2. 6:35 p.m. NOAH Preservation Policies 3. 7:50 p.m. SLP Policing Model / Critical Incident Planning (Session 2 of 4) 4. 9:05 p.m. Proposed Redevelopment – 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini’s site) 9:35 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal) 9:40 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. Comprehensive Plan Update 6. 2018 Connect the Park Project 7. Update on Bass Lake Preserve Stormwater Improvement Projects 8. Historic Walker Lake Design Study 9. Surface Water Management Plan Update 10. August 2017 Monthly Financial Report Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 25, 2017 Written Report: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning October 2 & October 9, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session on October 2 and the Regular Study Session on October 9. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the Special Study Session on October 2 and the Regular Study Session on October 9, 2017. Also attached to this report is the Study Session Prioritizaton & Tentative Discussion Timeline. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – October 2 & 9, 2017 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 2 & October 9, 2017 OCTOBER 2, 2017 6:30 p.m. – Special Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. Regulating Flavored Tobacco Products – Inspections (60 minutes) Discussion with city attorney regarding draft ordinance prohibiting retail sale of any flavored (except menthol) tobacco product, including vaping, e-cigarettes, and chew. Tobacco license holders are being notified of this agenda item. End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m. OCTOBER 9, 2017 6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. 2018 Budget – Administrative Services (90 minutes) Staff will review highlights of the 2018-2027 Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, the long range financial management plan, utility funds and the debt model will be reviewed. 3. Fastpitch Softball Update – Operations & Recreation (30 minutes) Continued discussion related to the exploration of constructing fastpitch softball fields at Aqulia Park. 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. Written Reports 4. Vision 3.0 Update 5. 2018 Fee Schedule End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 2 & October 9, 2017 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Priority Discussion Topic Comments Date Scheduled 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 1 of 4 (held on 8/14/17) Ongoing 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 2 of 4 September 25, 2017 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 3 of 4 October 16, 2017 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 4 of 4 November 13, 2017 4 Preserving the Walker Building Combined w/Walker Lake Branding Discussion (held on 8/28/17) Ongoing 4 Race Equity Communication to HRC on Outreach & Next Steps Most recently discussed on Sept 11 Ongoing 4 Race Equity/Inclusion Courageous Conversations Most recently discussed on Sept 11 Ongoing 4 Affordable Housing Preservation Policies/Ordinance September 25, 2017 4 Flavored Tobacco Ordinance October 2, 2017 4 Climate Action Plan Consultant updating draft. Review by E&S Commission & staff council-ready. 4th Qtr 2017 3 Revitalization of Walker/Lake Area Part of Preserving Walker Building report (held on 8/28/17; report also provided 9/25) Ongoing 3 Utilization of DBE Vendors Discussed on 9/11 Ongoing 3 Ranked Choice Voting Discussed 9/18 October 2 3 Historical Society Space Part of Preserving Walker Building report October ____ 3 Policy for Funding Non-Profits Part of 2018 Budget item October 9, 2017 3 Field Improvements/Girls Fastpitch Softball October 9 / Ongoing 3 Living Streets Policy After Vision 3.0 work is completed 4th Qtr 2017 3 The Nest Postponed to 2018 per their request. January 2018 3 Develop a Youth Advisory Commission 1st Qtr 2018 2 Bird Friendly Glass 2 Dark Skies Ordinance (Light Pollution) 2 Community Center Project ? Overview of Crime Free Ordinance Priority not yet determined. Fall 2018 ? SEED’s Community Green House / Resiliant Cities Initiative ? TH 169 Mobility Study Direction provided on Sept 11 3 Property Tax Relief for Seniors Part of 2018 Budget item (Councilmember Brausen: "No further study needed.") October 9, 2017 2 Sidewalk Snow Removal Part of 2018 Budget item (Majority of councilmembers determined no need to discuss further at this time.) October 9, 2017 2 Active Space Matching Grants w/ Multi- Family Communities Part of 2018 Budget item (Will be included in 2018 Budget Proposal.) October 9, 2017 Priority Key 5 = High priority/discuss ASAP 4 = Discuss sooner than later 3 = Discuss when time allows 2 = Low priority/no rush 1 = No need to discuss Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 25, 2017 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: NOAH Preservation Policies RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of the report and study session discussion is to review the draft ordinance related to the implementation of a local Advanced Notice of Sale policy, update the council on the status on other NOAH preservation policies identified by the council for further consideration, and review the input received from the rental owners/landlords at two informational meetings held to discuss the NOAH preservation strategies being considered by the council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the council want to consider adopting an ordinance that would require multi-family residential property owners to notify the city in advance of entering into a purchase agreement to sell their property? Will the adoption of this policy result in the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) or the protection of low income tenants? What are the unintended consequences of this policy? Does the council support the convening of a workgroup that would include affordable housing advocates and representatives from the St. Louis Park rental community and MN Multi-Housing Association for the purpose of facilitating a conversation about NOAH preservation strategies and determine if there is any agreement for moving forward? SUMMARY: At the June 12, 2017 city council study session, staff reviewed two NOAH preservation strategies, the Advance Notice of Sale and the Just Cause Eviction tenant protection policy. Both of these strategies had been identified by the council for consideration in preserving existing affordable housing for low and moderate income households in the community. Following discussion by the council, staff was directed to continue to move forward on the development of an Advance Notice of Sale policy and return to council with a draft ordinance for review and further discussion. Staff worked with the city’s legal counsel to draft an ordinance that reflects the council’s discussion held at the June 12 meeting. Council also indicated an interest in the Eviction for Cause policy, but the general consensus was that further research and discussion with the council was needed. Council supported staff’s proposal to schedule informational meetings with the rental owners and landlords to review the NOAH strategies being considered by the council and to seek their input. Two meetings were held in August with approximately 60 in attendance. Staff also received approximately 20 comments by email and phone. A summary of the comments is provided in the report and a full recording of the comments is attached. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft Ordinance Rental Owner/Landlord Meeting Comments Larkin Hoffman Letter Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the June 12, 2017 city council study session, staff reviewed two NOAH preservation strategies, the Advance Notice of Sale and the Just Cause Eviction tenant protection policy. Both of these strategies were identified by the council for consideration in preserving existing affordable housing for low and moderate income households in the community. The council expressed an interest in continuing to move forward with the implementation of the Advance Notice policy asking that staff return to council with a draft ordinance for review and further discussion. The council also indicated an interest in the Eviction for Cause policy but asked for more information and indicated additional discussion was needed prior to moving forward. Since the June 12 meeting staff have continued to participate in a workgroup facilitated by ULI MN with representatives from multiple cities, the state, Hennepin County, Met Council, housing advocate groups and Family Housing Fund to explore housing preservation tools and policies and share ideas on ways to move forward with effective local government practices. There have been three meetings to date. The first two meetings focused on the Advance Notice of Sale policy since several communities were either in the process or indicated an interest in enacting this policy in their community. The meeting last week focused on a pilot Rental Rehab Program targeted at small and medium properties being developed by Family Housing Fund and ULI MN. Staff also facilitated two information meetings on August 22 and 23 to engage St. Louis Park rental owners and landlords and receive their input on the NOAH preservation policies/strategies being considered by the council. Invites were mailed to all owners of licensed rental properties in the community. 1500 notices were mailed and approximately 60 attended the two meetings. Comments were also received by email and phone. A summary of the comments is listed below and a complete list of the comments is attached along with a letter received from the legal council representing one of the rental properties. Staff worked with the city’s legal counsel to draft an Advance Notice of Sale for council review. The draft ordinance is summarized below and attached to the report. I. Advance Notice of Sale of NOAH: An Advance Notice of Sale policy would require owners of multi-family residential rental buildings to give advance notice to the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement for the sale of a building. This would provide the city with information about the sale of properties with rents affordable to low-income tenants in order to support strategies to preserve the affordability of these properties. The city would use the notification information to inform preservation buyers of an impending sale of a possible NOAH property. The preservation buyers would be responsible for evaluating the property for potential preservation efforts including incentives and acquisition of the property. The intent is not to interrupt a pending sale but to give stakeholders notice and an opportunity to possibly engage a preservation buyer. The following are key factors included in the ordinance: 1. Action that triggers advance notice requirement: • Owner is planning to enter into a purchase agreement to sell property. • Sales which are simple transfers with basically the same ownership, sales between family members or sales between property owners of the development would be exempted. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies 2. Length of notice period: • Seller gives a notice to the city 90 days prior to entering into a purchase agreement. • Once notified, the city will pass the information on to identify “preservation buyers”. 3. Ordinance applies to the following buildings: • NOAH buildings with 40 units or greater, or multiple contiguous buildings that individually have less than 40 units that if sold to one buyer as part of a transaction to acquire multiple parcels simultaneously includes 40 or more units. 4. Definition of a NOAH building: • A NOAH building is any property charging a rental amount affordable to a household at 60% Area Median Income (AMI) or below. • Applies if at least one unit is affordable to a household at 60% AMI. 5. Identification of NOAH properties: • At the annual rental licensing renewal, applicants will be asked to certify if they meet the definition of a NOAH property. It is the owner’s responsibility to comply with the ordinance. 6. Enforcement/Penalty: • Any owner who violates the ordinance shall pay an administrative license violation fee of $1000.00. Considerations: • Legal authority: There is no enabling legislation that specifically allows the city to enact an Advance Notice provision. Lack of direct authority and the fact that this has not been tested in Minnesota could expose the city to a legal challenge. • Length of notice: The goal is to provide enough time to allow an opportunity for a preservation buyer to insert themselves as a legitimate buyer if appropriate but not so lengthy that the policy significantly encumbers the owner’s right to sell their property. • Applies to NOAH properties only: Requiring all rental properties to give notice might be the most equitable; however we could be criticized/challenged for regulating sales of higher end buildings irrelevant to the purpose of the policy. There is no justification for requiring higher end properties to notify the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement. • Size of buildings: Aeon and Greater MN Housing Fund, both identified as preservation buyers, have indicated that the minimum size building they would consider acquiring would need to have 40 units. • Enforcement: Fining the seller may have little or no impact. If the property has sold, the seller no longer has ties to the property so enforcing a fine could be challenging and not really a deterrent if they have no other properties they plan on selling. License suspension, revocation, denial and non-renewal - actions that would be appropriate for failure to comply with provisions of the rental ordinance - could be somewhat counterintuitive and could possibly displace residents or prevent the rental of vacant units. Also, the advance notice requirement applies to the previous owner, not to the buyer. Lastly, there is a question of how the buyer remedies the violation. Potential Number of Properties Impacted: 41 developments (71 multi-family residential parcels) currently designated as B- and C class buildings could potentially be impacted by the ordinance. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies The properties have a total 4993 units. This includes 26 parcels that have less than 40 units but are part of a multi-parcel contiguous development that totals more than 40 units. This also includes 7 developments that include rent restricted units. It is not known if all these properties charge rental rates that would classify them as NOAH properties. Potential Number of Properties Impacted B- and C Class Parcels Developments Units Rent Restricted Developments 71 41 4993 7 Second Phase of Notice – Buyer gives notice to tenants It is no longer being proposed to include a second phase of the notice requiring that new owners provide a 90 day notice to tenants prior to implementing any lease changes, rent increases or non- renewals. It is the opinion of our legal counsel that we eliminate this phase of the notice because its application could be construed as being in conflict with the prohibition on rent controls under MN Stat. 471.996 II. Update on Additional NOAH Preservation Initiatives: • Eviction for Cause: Staff provided an overview of this policy at the June 12 study council session. Time limitations prevented an in depth discussion and council asked that this policy be brought back for discussion at a future meeting. There has not been significant discussion on this policy within the ULI MN workgroup since few communities have indicated an interest in moving forward with this policy. Internally, we have continued to research the implications of adopting this policy including how this might impact the effectiveness of the city’s current crime free ordinance. The Eviction for Cause policy also generated the most discussion and most opposition at the recent informational meetings held with the rental owners and landlords (summarized below). Rental owners and landlords asked that the city convene a workgroup to discuss further before implementation. • Nondiscrimination Based on the Use of Public Rental Assistance: There is currently a lawsuit that has been filed challenging Minneapolis’ recent adoption of a nondiscrimination ordinance based on the use of public rental subsidy. Metro communities are deferring further action related to this policy until the outcome of the lawsuit is known. Staff proposes that St. Louis Park act similarly and delay further action on this policy until the outcome of the lawsuit is determined. • Financial Assistance for Rehab in Exchange for Rent Restrictions: ULI MN and Family Housing Fund hosted a meeting September 12 to discuss the creation of a pilot rehab program that would provide financial assistance for rehab or capital improvements targeted at small and medium size multi-family residential properties in exchange for rent restricted units. The program being considered is modeled after a program currently funded by MN Housing for properties in greater Minnesota. ULI and FHF are determining local interest and exploring potential funding sources including local contributions. A meeting to discuss this initiative further is scheduled for September 21. Rental Owner/Landlord Meetings Staff facilitated two informational meetings with rental property owners and landlords on August 22 and 23 to review the NOAH preservation policies/strategies being considered by the council and to obtain their input. There were approximately 60 attendees and additional 20 comments were received by email and phone calls. The attendees were unanimous in their concern and objection Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies to implementation of the three policies; Advance Notice of Sale, Eviction for Cause and Non- Discrimination against Applicants Using Public Rent Subsidy. The most vocal and greatest number of comments were received regarding the Eviction for Cause policy. A number of attendees voiced interest in the Financing for Rehab in Exchange for Rent Restrictions strategy but stated that use of such a program would depend on favorable financing terms. A number of attendees requested that the city convene a workgroup, similar to what was done when the city implemented rental licensing, to discuss the proposed NOAH policies and see if there was a workable solution. The following is a summary of the most frequently heard comments General comments: • Is there really a problem – how many people is this effecting • These policies are not going to be impactful – “sound bite” solutions - will not solve the problem • City should sit down with owners and MMHA have a conversation to seek a workable program; not our fault there isn’t enough affordable housing • Policies are punitive – focus on collaboration and incentives • Unfair if it only applies to NOAH properties; those that currently provide affordable housing in the community • SLP already has too much regulation; we don’t need further government regulations; already have rental licensing and crime free ordinance • Policies could be counterintuitive – could incent owners to increase rents to avoid the policies • Owners will try to ensure their rents are above the threshold even if that means renovating units to garner higher rents • These policies, if adopted, will be legally challenged – they violate state law Advance Notice of Sale: • Many expressed skepticism that the policy will really make a difference • Property owners should have a right to sell their property without any encumbrances • Not fair if it is only being applied to existing NOAH properties – those providing affordable housing now are going to face additional regulation • Why don’t the preservation buyers get a broker or seek out owners to buy their properties like other buyers; come talk to us about their interest in purchasing properties • Identifying NOAH properties for sale means national investors will also know these properties are for sale, they have a lower profit margin and can offer more – offer cash; could be counterintuitive to what is trying to be accomplished • Transactions happen quickly - 90 days would be a handicap to sellers • Shouldn’t target one class of properties Eviction for Cause: • Not all residents are good neighbors – we have a responsibility to our good residents to deal with problem tenants • Housing courts favor tenants – difficult to get judgments – noise, additional adults, etc. is difficult to prove – can cost thousands of dollars – if we don’t win in court, there will be no options to remove a problem tenant. • City crime free ordinance requires owners to take action in certain circumstances – training supports non-renewal as a good management tool to address lease violations under crime free Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies • Tenant and landlord enter into a contract for a period of time. Once contract is fulfilled, the tenant and landlord can choose whether to negotiate a new contract • Nonrenewal can avoid filing an unlawful detainer on a tenant – tenant avoids having a UD on their record • Will no longer take a chance on tenants with issues that surface during their background check if I’m not able to do a nonrenewal if a problem arises. • We are business people – we want good tenants to stay – we don’t want to incur costs to turnover units. • What problem are you trying to solve – is there a big problem Finance Rehab Program: • Like the idea – depends on terms • Need more programs that provide incentives NEXT STEPS: Advance Notice of Sale: Assuming the Council wanted to move forward, the timeline listed below is the quickest schedule that could be used for implementation of the Advanced Notice of Sale ordinance. This timeline is tentative and may need to be adjusted based on the City Council input provided during the study session discussion, including a request for the formation of the Rental Owners/Advocates Work Group. Item Date Staff/city attorney finalize Ordinance revisions In progress Public Hearing/First Reading of Ordinances Oct. 16, 2017 Second Reading of Ordinances Nov. 6, 2017 Date of Publication Nov.16, 2017 Date Ordinances take effect Dec. 1, 2017 Rental Owners/Housing Advocates Workgroup: Based on the direction from the council, staff will convene a workgroup that includes representatives from MN Multi Housing Association and the St. Louis Park rental industry and representatives from the agencies advocating for NOAH preservation strategies. The purpose of the workgroup will be to have a conversation regarding the preservation strategies being considered by the council and determine if there is any middle ground for a workable solution. Staff has contacted a number of a number of advocates and St. Louis Park property owners who have expressed interest in participating on a working group if it is established. Staff will also continue participation in the ULI of MN facilitated work group of city, state, county, housing industry and advocates interested in exploring strategies and tools for preserving NOAH properties. A meeting is scheduled for this week to continue exploration of the pilot rehab financing program initiative. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies ORDINANCE NO. ____-17 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING OWNERS OF CERTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO NOTIFY THE CITY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE OWNER’S PROPOSED SALE OF THAT HOUSING WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (“city”) because of its location, which is convenient to the Minneapolis downtown business district and nearby park and recreational areas, is experiencing a shortage of rental housing affordable to households with income under 60 percent of area median income (“AMI”); and WHEREAS, existing multifamily buildings in the city provide affordable housing options for households at or below 60 percent of AMI; and WHEREAS, because of its location and population growth the city is a very attractive market for investors desiring to purchase existing, affordable multifamily buildings; and WHEREAS, the purchase of existing, affordable multifamily buildings by new owners can result in the loss of housing affordable to households at or below 60 percent AMI because of property upgrades or conversions to condominium units that may accompany such purchases; and WHEREAS, the loss of housing units affordable to households at or below 60 percent AMI has the effect of forcing those households out of the city; and WHEREAS, the City Housing Authority (“HA”) may purchase or work with housing developers to purchase existing buildings in order to preserve existing, affordable multifamily buildings; and WHEREAS, requiring owners to give the city advance notice of their desire to sell an existing, affordable multifamily building gives the city an opportunity to evaluate and prepare a potential purchase and sale offer for such building. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That the Code of Ordinances, City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is hereby amended by adding the following sections to be numbered 8-336, 8-337, and 8-338, which sections read as follows: Sec. 8-336. Notice of Intent to Sell The owner of a multifamily rental housing building having forty (40) or more housing units located on a single parcel, or multiple contiguous parcels, any one of which rents for an amount Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies that is affordable to households at or below 60 percent of AMI, as median income was most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Twin Cities metropolitan statistical area, as adjusted for household size and bedroom size, shall notify the HA of the owner’s intent to sell the building. The notice shall be in writing and include the owner’s name, phone number, and the address of the rental housing building that will be put up for sale. The notice shall be mailed no later than ninety (90) days prior to the execution of a purchase agreement or the negotiation of any material terms of a purchase agreement. Sec. 8-337 Annual Reporting The owner of a multifamily rental housing building having ten (40) or more housing units shall annually report individual unit rents when applying for or renewing a rental license. Sec. 8-338. Penalty Any owner who violates section 8-337 or 8-338 shall pay an administrative license violation fee of $1000.00. The owner may appeal the imposition of the fee to the City Manager or designee by making a written request for a hearing within ten (10) days of receipt of the Notice of Imposition of the administrative fee. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect following its passage and publication on _________ , ___, 2017. ADOPTED this _____ day of _________________, 2017, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Public Hearing First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 9 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies Comments from NOAH Landlord Information Sessions – August 22 and 23 I.Advance Notice of Sale -Do not think policies should apply to apply to luxury apartments. -You’d be providing a public record of transactions currently offered, this would make the potential sale public including to coastal investors who are only interested in capital returns. They have lower capital return expectations, which could bring up the value of property and work against preserving affordability. Could have opposite effect – counter to what you are trying to accomplish. -NOAH is not an actual classification. -How does the city vet what units are NOAH and who with this apply to? -90 day notice is discriminating if it only applies to NOAH properties. -How will the city pay for staff time to track NOAH properties? Are you going to raise taxes to pay for this? -There is value in having private owners/buyers. The perception is that the city doesn’t want private LL’s in St Louis Park by giving non-profits a preference for preservation buyers. -Transactions are turning over so fast in this market that 90 days would be a real handicap for sellers. -This policy is silly – it won’t change anything - just annoying. -A landlord needs to be able to sell their property when they want to sell and if they need to terminate a lease because they want to sell or move into the property or any other reason - they should not have to go through more complicated policy requirements. An example of your policies that are irritating and unnecessary is the point of sale inspection. Buyers and sellers work out items that usually end up on the inspection list -and still do so even if there is not a sale housing inspection requirement. Every other city does not have these (except for the few that still do) and those buyers and sellers work things out every day. Edina has just as old of housing stock and it is not a requirement. You are spending city tax dollars where they don’t belong- by meddling with things that don’t need to be meddled with. This is a free market society and rents go up. That is why we encourage home ownership as a goal for all. Things that could use funding help are down payment assistance for buyers. Their mortgage will not go up but rent will, and should. New York City is having issues with people being kicked out of their subsidized apartments. The free market needs to operate for everybody, not just the poor or the wealthy. This should be sent to the rest of the city representatives as this is another waste of tax dollars/time/effort spent on things that don’t need to be worked on. All this does is make me as a landlord want to sell the property I own in St. Louis Park. -This policy will not apply to my situation. I own one townhome that does not cash flow. It does not and will not in the future make a good rental property. No new owner would be interested in it as a rental property. I am opposed to this policy in my case as it does not make sense in my situation and will only be unnecessary work prior to sale. -I bought and accumulated property over a long period of time – it’s my retirement – 90 days delay to sell could erode the economic value. -Well-meaning but you shouldn’t target one class of properties – unfair. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 10 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies II.Eviction for Cause -It is the Landlords right to terminate a lease – this is paramount! I’ve been in housing for 20 years and even drugs are not an automatic if you go to housing court. Nor is nonpayment, some judges don’t uphold either automatically. If our only option is to file an unlawful detainer, we will be limited in our ability to terminate the lease of problem tenants. -We do not evict out of thin air – its costly to turn over units – we evict or do a non-renewal for a justified cause. -LL’s use non-renewal for problem tenants because it allows both the LL and tenant to separate without a UD being filed on tenant. The tenant then avoids having a UD on their record. -Lot of concerns…. Especially eviction for cause, misnomer calling it eviction. Allowing a lease to expire is better option than termination. As Crime Free training teaches – one of the tools LL have is non-renewal. Non-renewal is a good tool if someone moved in who is causing issues or problems as a tenant. Can’t win this in court. A lot of things won’t stand up in court. What if a tenant is a “creep” (example was taking pictures of people at the swimming pool) and makes good tenants move out, nonrenewal is the only option. Had long conversation with Chief Harcey and Tom Harmening. Unintended consequences – lose of good tool for getting rid of bad tenants. -Real life example of why this doesn’t work – Resident at property has multiple noise violations, police have been called several times and tenants all around the unit have made multiple complaints. Police Chief sends letter to take action and file an Unlawful Detainer/eviction. Judge at the Housing Court did not uphold the eviction – didn’t think it was serious enough. Now as a landlord I have to explain to the neighbors that I can’t do anything else to get them out of the apartment and I may lose good tenants because I can’t deal with the problem. The only option without non-renewal is Eviction/UD. This is also bad for tenant because if it is upheld court, the tenant can have long term impacts and not be able to rent anywhere with a UD on their record. Whereas if they leave at lease term end they can leave without it impacting their future to secure another residence. -Logically this really bothers me, lease ends at the end of term. LL’s do not want good tenants to move out - LL’s do not have the ability to require good tenants to stay at end of term even if LL wants to keep them. This would handcuff LL’s and not let them non-renew if there is a problem tenant. The landlord takes all the risk. -Not every tenant is a good neighbor and there are often complaints from neighbors. We need to serve all our tenants. Non-renewal helps avoid eviction because a UD causes hardship for tenant and the tool of non-renewal helps to ensure a well-run rental community. We have an obligation to the other residents in our buildings to deal with problem tenants. -LL’s only get rid of problem tenants, we don’t just throw people out. We want our units full. What are you trying to accomplish with this? How are landlords supposed to deal with problem tenants? -Eviction for Cause is a violation of state law. There will be a legal challenge to this if it is implemented. You should be seeking a legislative change if you want to see change. -Basically a lease is a contract where tenant and landlord each have rights. When the contract term ends – both parties should have the right to re-negotiate. This policy would allow tenants to execute a non-renewal but landlords would not have the same right. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 11 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies - If this policy only applies to NOAH properties, you are putting managers of affordable housing at a disadvantage in being able to address tenant problems over non-NOAH properties. - UD for someone violating lease is very difficult to get in housing court. Important to know that both parties can incur thousands of dollars in legal costs. Time and money is spent on litigation and the tenant will have a have a UD on record regardless of the outcome. - Example – Tenant had 25 noise infractions – a UD was filed and 4 tenants living in units nearby all testified and still no UD granted and resulted in a counter claim against the owner. - A non-renewal does not go on a tenant’s record and can work for both sides. - Eviction does not work in our housing court – hard to obtain a UD. If you lose in housing court you would have no other options. - Maybe you need to look closer at what the problem is that you are trying to solve. Do we really have an issue with non-renewals that would not be attributed to a “just cause”? Tenants can take recourse if they think they are being discriminated against. State statute also prevents retaliation. I don’t think we should be compared to Richfield. In the case of Crossroads and Meadowbrook, this policy would not have prevented tenants from losing their housing, non-renewals would have been allowed due to the extensive renovation that occurred. - If you have a problem tenant causing life style issues for other tenants the Landlord will not have any recourse but a UD filing. If we are unable to obtain an eviction we will not have any other recourse and are reducing the quality of life for other renters. - Strong inspections and crime free do help create good rentals now – we don’t need more regulations. - I purchased my home so that WHEN I AM READY, I can live in the home. I do not want the city to take away my right to cancel a lease upon expiration. That should be my right as an owner. I may want to sell my property or move into it on MY timeline and terms, not the tenant’s. As an owner, I am assuming many risks that a tenant is not. Why should the tenant restrict my business decisions? These changes will adversely affect my business plan. I am opposed to this policy as it will adversely affect me. - If I no longer have the option of doing a non-renewal, I will not be willing to take a chance on an applicant that has any marginal issues that surface in the screening process. The process may be counterintuitive to what you are trying to accomplish. - If this only applies to NOAH properties, this unfair. You are adding additional regulations and penalizing to only the owners providing affordable housing now. III. Non-Discrimination based on the use of Housing Choice Vouchers - Section 8 is voluntary program - owners should not be required to participate. - Such a requirement is discriminatory against LL’s who have NOAH properties. If rents are too high to participate in the Section 8 program, this policy doesn’t apply to you and you aren’t required to take Section 8. Again, this policy applies only to properties already providing more affordable rents. - 4-plex owner - Section 8 – I think rents are going to go up and I will make sure my rents don’t qualify for Section 8. I will upgrade my units and increase my rents to make sure I can get higher rents. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 12 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies - Minneapolis landlords argued this would raise rents overall. The Housing Choice Voucher Payment Standards provide a clear line of where to raise rent to stay out of Section 8. Could escalate rents needlessly – effecting renters without vouchers in NOAH properties. Counterintuitive! - LL question – whose lease do they have to use if they have a Section 8 tenant. Nicole explained they use their own lease in conjunction with the HAP Contract. - LL question – can an inspection be done if there is a currently tenant in unit? Nicole explained that is just fine – the unit does not have to be vacant. - LL said he works with Section 8 in Richfield and Bloomington and praised their work, but he will not work with Section 8 in St Louis Park because of the rigorous inspection department’s requirements that are already imposed on him. There are already too many requirements of rental owners in SLP. - LL question – Are owners going to be required to take any kind of subsidy programs (private and public)? What rules can they enforce on LL’s? What is the burden on the LL? The city should be very careful on how such a policy is worded. Even if Section 8 isn’t overly burdensome for LL to participate in, other rental subsidy programs might be. We could be requiring landlords to participate in programs that would add significant administrative work for owners. - I DO NOT want to have the government in my rental property and am opposed to the voucher that I would be FORCED to accept from a tenant who receives assistance. As an owner, I should be able to CHOOSE who I do business with. I should also be able to CHOOSE to accept government assistance (through voucher or Section 8) if I wish. I AM OPPOSED to having this forced on me. I have not accepted Section 8 in the past because I do not want any more government intervention in my business and because the expenses of my home make the Section 8 payment inadequate. Market rate for my home is $1460- 1560 per month. The lower end of this range does not cover expenses. It would not make good business sense to lower rent rate to capture a Section 8 tenant. I am opposed to this policy as it will adversely affect me. - City should do more education on the Section 8 program – sounds like there is a lot of misinformation. IV. Funding Assistance for rehab of multi-family rental properties in exchange for rent restrictions - Details of terms are critical in loan programs. Sharpen pencils and show what terms are appealing to owners. For how long is preservation of rents required? - Great idea if terms are good for both sides. - Could be good but need to define what rent restrictions would be. - Steve Grossman - Can you please explain what SLP offers as funding assistance for multi- family rental properties and would I qualify as an owner of a duplex rental? I would be interested in this program if the money was a grant for home improvements that would increase the value of my property and only if this increase in value outweighs my loss in rent reduction. Please keep me posted when and if such a program is offered. - Have you done research on the effect of this type of policy? I believe another suburb tried this and it was a disaster for owners. Owners rehabbed properties and the city capped rent and even lowered rent, making it impossible for owners to pay back debt or break even. Many properties went into foreclosure, ruining the lives of owners and tenants. I would Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 13 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies not participate in this program and would advise other landlords to do the same. Owners must be able to collect enough rent to pay expenses for the business model to be successful and continue to provide housing. Residential real estate puts all the risk on the owner as expenses cannot always be passed to the customer like in commercial real estate. Removing an owner’s ability to raise rent when expenses rise, makes residential real estate a risky business. Having the government able to cap rent, reduce rent regardless of owner’s expenses will NOT draw landlords to your community as your policy intends. I am opposed to this policy as it would be too risky in my experience. V. General thoughts - Are these things problems in St Louis Park? Do we have numbers of how many people this is effecting? - How many letters went out for this meeting? (Approx. 1500) - Thank you for holding meeting. No one opposed to quality affordable housing but don’t know how these policies will work. Look at Minneapolis, they had a zero interest loan w/forgivable loan. It was an excellent program. There are no incentives for LL’s, getting hard to do business in SLP. Richfield is not the issue in SLP. What are the needs of SLP residents? Why as a LL do I have to provide everything? - Density and demand – unless the city provides tools (social services) that go hand in hand with affordable housing needs. - City should sit down with MHA and landlords to come up with a workable program. Not our fault that there isn’t enough affordable housing. (Applause from majority of attendees) - City has assisted in the development of a lot of expensive multi-unit properties. These policies won’t impact any of those properties. If city is concerned about affordable housing the city should invest in it – not attack the people doing the right thing. (More applause) - Bring tenants, landlords, etc. together to work on issue like when rental ordinance was implemented. - LL for 46 years – have had a few excellent tenants, had same number of tenants from hell. Everyone else is in the middle. As socio-economics go up the tenants take better care of properties. Lower socio-economic “destruction is name of game”. - Rents being driven up is partly the City’s fault. In 2008 city continued to raise taxes on commercial apts. Every year rental license rates go up. Water cost is ridiculous. Apartments put in a different tier and charged more although on average renters water use is less. Inspections on rentals are expensive and they must pass that on to tenants. Already required to comply with the Crime Free ordinance. Had tenant with multiple noise violations, it was the tenants child and tenant was not home. Police come after LL not renter/parent? Upgrading apartments because renters want the upgrades not 50’s kitchens and bathrooms. If I don’t keep my place up, I can’t get good tenants (educated, responsible, good tenants). City annoys him because they are always in his pocket. He had a city employee treat him badly at the brush drop off spot. - Encourage engaging with LL/MHA instead of dictating. - Duplex owner for 50 years. Recently sold duplex in St Louis Park, asked both renters first if they would like to buy it. Renters didn’t want to buy properties in St Louis Park because too many restrictions and too much government involvement. - $360 fee for Point of Sale inspection. Redundant because property was just inspected and it’s only good for one year. Too many restrictions in St Louis Park. State and County have Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 14 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies a say in much of what LL’s do, why doesn’t the city work with State and County. Shouldn’t be restrictive to the point people don’t want to own rental property in SLP. - Love SLP, live and work here! Does have concerns? We already have fair housing to protect residents/tenants. Unfair to use Meadowbrook as example with all the money that has been invested into that property – the renovation would have been a “just cause” for non-renewals. Seems fair to request statistics on these causes. - Understand what the city is trying to do - think the right incentives would be a better way. These actions are very punitive! Not a win-win. - How does the city know who is a NOAH property? Would this apply to Single Family home? - A lot of companies or people have acquired units over time and keep costs/rents low because they have a good tenant. If you breakout certain classes (B/C properties or properties that charge lower rents), and force owners to wait for 90 days, this erodes economic value of the property and is very unfair. Like taking away retirement fund. Lots of litigation could happen because only applied to certain classes. Believes you will get unwanted results. Maybe, well-meaning actions but will not work. Example, an affordable housing project in Minneapolis ended up costing about $660,000 per bedroom to build as well as the Schmidt Brewing project that was $400,000 a unit for affordable housing. Could work as a detriment to renters with people increasing rents to avoid these NOAH policies. - Policies are being shopped around by advocates and the first 3 items are sound bite solutions. There will be unintended consequences. This is an income problem, not a rent problem. By shifting the burden to rental properties, owners are incentivized to raise rents to avoid policies. When did local government get in the business of regulating rents? These regulations are in conflict with state laws and federal guidelines. Appreciate wanting to expand affordable units but think it will actually result in decrease. This will backfire and cause more issues. Focus on collaboration not heavy handed dictatorial practiced. (Room applauded) - Regulations and mandates are bad idea. St Louis Park should look at Minneapolis and the legal action that is being taken against them. - Knowing the 60% AMI rents will cause landlords to raise rent above that level to avoid NOAH requirements. - St Louis Park doesn’t need any more regulations. We’ve been good neighbors to the city. We provide a valuable housing option. The intended results will backfire. Think carefully before making decisions that will affect owners/managers and tenants. - If you want more preservation buyers, host a meeting for preservation buyers to approach owners in St Louis Park to let them know they’d like to be considered for purchasing their properties. Ex. Aeon should go out and look no their own. The city could let all the owners know to contact them if they are considering selling. - Options 1 through 3 are bad ideas but 4 could be good. Heavy handed regulations. I live in St Louis Park and love it, but it’s becoming a lot more restrictive to own rental property. If I am going to buy more properties – I will look in other communities. - What if these policies are implemented and they don’t work? - Small owner – I have been a LL for 30 years and I am seriously considering selling my St Louis Park properties. There is too much regulation. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 15 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies - Every year there is a change in licensing. Example, last year I had to have all furnaces inspected. Notification was sent to every tenant that they were not in compliance but that was not the case. You keep adding more paperwork. - Every year licensing costs raise. - Building built in the 1950’s need to be improved, new life cannot be brought into buildings without raising rents. - Problem with government is that they have little or no experience in owning or managing rentals. - Is the city heading towards rent control? - These regulations could cause backlash. Start to get bad reputation where renters can do what they want. Owners can’t go to court on lifestyle things, examples – bad boyfriends, kids throwing trash, damaging and destroying property. - What prevents an owner from increasing rents above the NOAH standards? These policies will reduce the pool of affordable units available to renters. Emails Received - Under the capitalistic system, the market, the demand, is what determines the value / the price of "something" and the more of "something" there is, the less value it will have or anyway that's the story I was told in school. If rents are high in a particular area, those who cannot afford it will need to move to a less expensive area - that's why I live in St. Louis Park and not in North Oaks. If, as you claim in your letter, housing vacancy rates are low and demand is high then the answer is not "rent control" and such measures but to let market forces take over, new rental units should be built and the abundance of the new units will bring rents down. Government should do what it can to encourage business to build new/additional housing to bring rents down. I have heard that "rent control" has produced some very negative unintended consequences in other cities such as the owners cutting back on maintenance and the values of rental property dropping - I hope that will not be brought into our St. Louis Park. So, at the meeting could you bring up the topic? Is the market system/capitalism not working well, and if so, should government step in to micromanage it? How well have their attempts to micromanage worked in other cities? - I read with interest your letter to rental property owners/landlords dated August 7th. Affordable housing is a subject dear to my heart and I’ve observed over the years the decline of its availability in St. Louis Park. In addition to the 4 bullet points in the letter- is the city also considering purchasing land and building affordable housing units? I’m also curious to understand the motive for the city to receive advance notice of sale. It’s not immediately obvious to me how this policy would benefit the seller and the buyer. - I strongly oppose being forced to consider subsidized tenants. If you pass this I will strongly consider leaving SLP - I own one rental property in St. Louis Park and I appreciate you soliciting my feedback. Of the four options you named the only one that I support is Funding Assistance for rehab in exchange for rent restrictions. I support this option because it is VOLUNTARY. - Owning rental property in SLP is already difficult due to the inspection process, (crime free) lease clause, class requirement. Any other government intervention is not needed or welcome. The rent I collect for my townhome does not pay for all the expenses it accrues. I will not be looking to purchase in SLP now or in the future. Your four new plans will Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 16 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies drive other potential landlords like me to other communities, thus lowering the amount of rental properties in your community—the total opposite of your intended goal. Thank you for soliciting information from business owners, landlords, in your community. Too often government policies seem to make sense but in reality do not achieve the desired effect. This is one of those situations. - First, I must say that as my dad used to say "I am in business for myself and am my own boss." That said, the items you want to implement are not user friendly for an independent property owner. Advance notice of sale-I understand it would not impact everyone but it is free enterprise. We should not have to tell you that. Eviction-when a tenant chooses to move out, they must give proper notice, then move. They do not need to tell us why. Therefore we should not have to tell them why we are not renewing their lease. Also, the property in Richfield was brought up many times in a negative way. I will tell you 2 things that I experienced: - We have an apartment building at 7515 Penn. I was driving down Penn after visiting our building and low and behold there were 2 police with guns drawn during the day- 2PM. This was several years ago. I do all of the screening for our apartments. We had a vacancy. There were 2 people who applied that gave that address. When I ran their credit reports both were declined. Why? One was a social security number from a dead person and the other was from someone living in Louisiana. So the previous landlord before Jim Soderberg bought it did not check out their tenants. I would have to say Richfield must be pleased with the way the Concierge turned out. Again, free enterprise. I also have accepted a few tenants at Target Apartments from Meadowbrook. Owners have a right to remodel to their advantage and in the end might be better for the city. Higher taxes. The tenants benefit from a renovated apartment and the city gets a higher tax base. - My current renters moved in several months ago on a two year lease. My previous tenants had their unit for nine years. They were good tenants so I did not raise the rent for the entire time they occupied their unit. If the new tenants want to stay at the end of their lease term, I will gladly do the same thing for them. I don't want to hassle with getting new tenants if I can help it and my guess is most owners of owner occupied buildings feel the same way. I have reviewed your policies and have no problem with anything except the eviction for cause proposal. To begin, it is not really clear to me how it works. Does it mean I can't raise the rent at the end of a lease term? That I am forced to keep the same tenants even if there are no lease violations but we hate each other? Another issue - my mom is on hospice right now. At some point my dad may want to move back to MN. Being able to have him in my rental unit would be ideal. Could I accomplish that under this policy if I have tenants in place? I can honestly say that if this policy was in place when I bought my duplex, I would have considered a rental too risky and just bought a single family home. I think if this policy goes forward you will lose your smaller landlords. This is just too much bureaucracy for smaller landlords to deal with. And do you honestly think the bigger organizations will let their units fall below market rate rents? - I am a single-family homeowner that has been renting out for the last several years the home that my family has owned since 1968. I was unable to attend the recent meetings listed in your letter, but after reviewing the policies under consideration on the city website, I would like to offer a few comments. Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 17 Title: NOAH Preservation Policies Only the Local Program Offering Rehab Financing specifically references "multi-family housing". Does that mean that Advance Notice of Sale, Eviction for Cause policy and Prohibiting Discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher Holders policy will apply to landlords renting out single family homes? As to the Advance Notice of Sale, I cannot imagine this would apply to single-family homes. As to the Eviction for Cause policy, as the home owner, I may decide to live in the home or a family member may decide to live in the home. That seems reasonable given that it's the only home that I own. I already have to give the tenant adequate notice by the terms of the lease if I intend not to offer the lease again, and up until this point, every tenant has been offered the right to renew the lease at its termination. Finally, as to the policy Prohibiting Discrimination Against Housing Choice Voucher Holders, I would certainly hope that as an owner of a single-family home, I wouldn't have to spend time and money complying with federal regulations and bureaucracy and God forbid, possible legal action, because I really don't make money renting out my home and the possible costs of this particular policy could cause me serious financial damage. I am a homeowner of modest means. My tenants get a good deal: a great home for less than they might pay for a two-bedroom apartment. The family that just moved out in July (by their own choice), really enjoyed the property, the schools and living in a great city. For both my tenants and for myself, the current regulations are working well. Though I understand that city policy makers are concerned about affordable housing, I would hope that St. Louis Park retains the current flexibility in allowing current single-family homeowners to rent their properties without onerous and costly regulations and possibly resultant costly litigation. This will serve neither tenants, nor landlords. Study Session Meeting ofSeptember 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: NOAH Preservation PoliciesPage 18 Study Session Meeting ofSeptember 25, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: NOAH Preservation PoliciesPage 19 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 25, 2017 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: SLP Policing Model / Critical Incident Planning (Session 2 of 4) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council has scheduled four informational meetings to cover each of the following topics: the police department’s service delivery model, policy and procedures, critical incidents, and council response to a critical incident. Session two will cover department policies and procedures on biased policing, when to initiate a stop or detention, arrest and booking procedures, federal immigration law, vehicle pursuits, and use of force procedures. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please provide staff with your questions or comments either in advance or at the meeting. SUMMARY: The St. Louis Park Police Department has built community trust through Community Oriented Policing. Despite this strong support from the community, trust in the police can be fragile. To help prepare the council for questions about our police department in the event of a critical incident, City Manager Harmening, Police Chief Mike Harcey and staff will conduct a series of informational meetings with council. The proposed four informational meetings will cover the police department’s service delivery model, policy and procedures, critical incidents and council response to a critical incident. Session two will cover department policies and procedures on biased policing, when to initiate a stop or detention, arrest and booking procedures, federal immigration law, vehicle pursuits, and use of force procedures. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Michael Harcey, Police Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 25, 2017 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Proposed Redevelopment – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini’s site) RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Council is asked to provide feedback on the proposed project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed project and the concept of using TIF in keeping with the Councils expectations for this site? SUMMARY: Mr. William Stoddard, CEO of Stoddard Companies, proposes a redevelopment of the former Santorini’s property that would include a 149-unit apartment building and a 112-key limited service hotel. The apartment building would be located on the west side of the property, and the hotel on the east side with surface parking located between them. City council received two previous staff reports regarding this proposal; the first introduced the project on March 27, 2017, and the second provide a project update on June 12, 2017. A neighborhood meeting was held June 14, 2017, which two neighbors attended and both expressed support. The planning commission reviewed the applications for preliminary plat and preliminary PUD on June 21, 2017. The commission opened the public hearing and passed a motion to table the applications until additional information was provided. Mr. Stoddard extended the 120-day period for action by City Council to October 18. The property is guided and zoned Office. The PUD application includes requests for reduced setbacks, and reduced parking for the hotel. The maximum residential density allowed for multiple family residential uses in the Office district is 50 units per acre, or more with a PUD. The PUD would be 3.13 acres which allows up to 156 units. The requested 149-unit apartment building fits within this limit. The PUD would be split into two lots. The density of the residential lot alone would be 89 units per acre; however, the PUD would prohibit residential uses on the hotel lot. TIF District: On March 21, 2016, the EDA approved the establishment of the Wayzata Blvd Tax Increment Financing District in anticipation of development occurring at these properties. The proposed plan is consistent with the city’s expectations for this property: 5-6 story buildings with a mix of uses. Mr. Stoddard is in the process of finalizing the amount of the TIF request. The project will be subject to the Council’s Inclusionary Housing and Green Building policies. Right-of-Way: The city acquired the right-of-way along Wayzata Boulevard adjacent to the site from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The applicant intends to request vacation of the excess right-of-way and intends to acquire the land from the city in order to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. These requests would be considered with final plat and final PUD applications, if the preliminary applications are approved. NEXT STEPS: Assuming the Planning Commission takes action at its October 4 meeting, the application will be brought to city council for formal consideration on October 16. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Preliminary Site Plan & Building Elevations Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager LOUNGELOBBYFRONT DESKRESTROOMSRESTROOMSELEVATORELEVATOR LOBBYLINENOFFICE / EMPLOYEEMECHSTAIRSTAIRDELIVERY1,550 SFTOWNHOUSE1,293 SFTOWNHOUSE1,293 SFTOWNHOUSE1,293 SFTOWNHOUSE1,293 SFTOWNHOUSE1,125 SFTOWNHOUSE1,125 SFTOWNHOUSE1,125 SFTOWNHOUSE2,097 SFRESIDENTIAL LOBBY442 SFTRASH29,726SFPARKINGRAMP DOWNRAMP DOWNMOVE IN100' - 0"92' - 11"4/ White Oak4/ Hackberry1 / Northern Acclaim Locust3/Majestic Skies Oak3/ White Oak6 Ginko3 Swamp White Oak 1/ Red Barron Crabapple2/ Amber Jubelie Ninebark4/ Limelight Hydrangea 1/ Bloomerange Lilac Tree1/ Fraser Fir1/ Northwood Red Maple 6/ River Birch1 / Charles Joly Lilac 5/ Pinky Winky Hydrangea2/ Tannenbaum Pine4 Austrian Pine1/ Gold Finch Magnolia8/ Northern Acclaim Locust 4 / Swamp White Oak 2/ Bur Oak3/ Redmond Linden2/ Tannenbaum Pine5/ Technito Arb.3/ Rushmore Arborvitae6/ Kindred Spirit Oak 596/ Prairie Dropseed2/ Weeping Serbian Spruce3/ Majestic Skies Oak2/ Swamp White Oak8/Arcadia Juniper4/ Hackberry3/ Harvest Gold Linden7/ Taunton Japanese Yew3 Harvest Gold Linden3/ Hackberry 3/Swedish Columnar Aspen11/ Skinny Genes Oak4/ Red Oblisk Beech3/ Swedish Aspen2/ Swedish Aspen1/ Austrian Pine 1 / Ironwood 3/ Blue Beech 3/Siberian Spruce4/Ginko2/ Red Oblisk Beech2/ Skyline Locust2/ Northern Acclaim Locust16/ Montana Hosta2/ Hackberry4/ Butterﬂy Dw HoneysuckleBenchBBBBBenchB enchhEEEEEEEEELELEEEEEEEEEEEEELEELELEEFenced along property line for Dog Area240Dog WalkWood DecKELEELELLELELPlanting SpeciﬁcationsPlatia PlaceSt. Louis Park, MNPlanting Diagram: Planting holes will be appromimetlytwice the size of the plant mass.Excess soil over the root ﬂare will beremoved and the root ﬂare will be atthe surface of the installed plants.The bottom of the plant mass willsit on stable soil, possibly existingsoil of the site if they are the correctheight.The plants will be backﬁlled with theprepared planting soils and water into be sure all soils are wet.The planting soils will be graded tohave a saucer effect to retain water,The planting hole will be lightlycovered with about 1" of mulch.Plant Materials: All materials will be of the highest standard possible. For comparison, they will need to be on parwith the high end wholesal outletsPlant Inspection: The Builders agent will be advised of all shipments and review the condition of the plants when they arrive on site. At that time materials can be refused by the agent.Plant Maintenance: The installer will be responsible for all maintenance of the plant materials from the moment ofdelivery to the site until the Owner will take responsibility at the time of completion. The installer is responsible to care for the plants so they do not get damaged by storm, theft, or vandalism. Replacement will be at installers expense for the above situations.Watering and related care: The installer will be responsible for the watering and other care of materials at all timesduring the project. Neglected plants can be declared unﬁt by the agent on the site.Planting instruction: When referring to the planting soil, the term will refer to the prepared soil for planting of plantingsThe soil will be the equivalent of the planting mix on 40% compost, 40% top soil, and 20% sand. Onthe agreement of the Agent on site, some soil from the site may be used as a mix with the above materials to make the local planting soil.All trees, shrubs, perennials, evergreens and other plants will be planted with the following instructions.Roots of potted plants will be scoured if they have developed any roots growing around the pots,All larger plants will be planted as per the attached sketch to insure that the bottom of the root massis sitting on stable soil so the plants will be stable and will not sink into a soil mix.All plants will be planted a few inches above the natural soil to provide drainage. Shade, Ornamentaland Evergreen trees will be planted to the root ball (after any excess soil is removed from the plants)So they are about 2" above the natural soils. Smaller plants will not be planted as high.Mulching: All planting beds will be mulch with a double shredded hardwood mulch at 3" deep except immediately over the root mass of the installed mulch. Those areas should be less tha 1" deep.Existing soilto be rughedup to preventglazing.glazing.Prepared soils tobe used as backﬁllbe used as backﬁlRoot FlareSaucerMulch6' Wood, Board on BoardWoadEnd FenceEnd FenceeLot 1Lot 2Fe83123486 PLANTS BY CONDOS904904904904222222222222224024022240442404240424040024024024024024002402424244440024000244440002244024024044024040422444244002404448312" COTTONWOOD190220BenchBeBhBenchchBeeBenchchchnchncchnchnchnchnchchcenenBeneBeBeBeBeBBBBBchhhhhchhchhchBenchhhBenchccBBBBenchencencenenhnchnchnchnchnncnchchchchhhhhhBeBeBeBBeBBBeBBBBBeBeeBBeeBBeBeeBBBBeBe Lot 1Lot 2Lot 1Lot 2Grass DORA Area Ornamental GrassWalking Path - Porous rocklawnlawnLawnBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHGrass DORA AreaGrass DORA AreaBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHWalking Path - Porous rockWalking Path - Porous rock SFEy3/ Bagettle Barberryete10/ Sea Green JuniperTr9/ Scandia JuniperipnNH7/ Snowbelle Mockorange ee2/ Mugo Big Tuna PineinPSF4/ Wide Brim Hostarrrr6 Hughs JuniperHuHuuughs Juniper6ughs JuniperggWNa5/ Lavalamp Flare HydrangeaTO8/ Sonic Bloom Red Weigela ee486 PLANTS BY CONDO1/ Dwarf Korean Tree Lilac1/ Dwarf Korean Tree Lilac6 PLANTS BY CONDO6 PLANTS BY CONDO486 PLANTSrrS5/ Buffalo Juniper/ Buffalo Juniper486 PLANTS486 PLANTS5/ Crispa Cutleaf Stephanandraaa5/ C3 SSE6/ Carol Mackie DaphneDDDieDahDaieacolCa6/WN4/ Chicagoland BoxwoodC6/ Goldﬁnger Potentillaldﬁnoldﬁnger Potentillar3/ Cranberry CotoneasterF5/ Patriot Hosta7/ Dwarf Bush HoneysucklewwwarffoTO5/ Shibori SpireahbpaiireSboS55/ Taunton Japanes YewJJJJewJaonOW8/ Maggie Daley AstilbeMeebagg/M16/ Coneﬂower Mixed166nxeda1/ Double Bloom Spirea1/ D blu1bbopSF6/ Autumn Fire Sedum SSmAnn1NH9/ Mr. Goodbud Sedumd//GGbbeTrS5/ Arcadia Juniper///AAnn5444445/ Ghost Fernsssnhh/GhoF5/ Blue Angel Hosta25SE5/ Earth Angel Hosta3/ Kobold Original LiatrisSF4/ Taunton Japanese Yewtau1/ Bloomerange Lilac1HOE3/ Rozanne Geraniumeee GerGRRoGnnozan3/um14 Hedge CotoneasterdgddggggoossggdgCCCooCCCCCCCCCCCCrrrrererea4 Patiot Hostaooss417/ Japanese Painted Ferns tteessee7/8831/ Blue Mifﬁn ViburnumuuVVV1/ 83320/ Patirot HostaPP000aooaooardB60/ Tor Spireaea3/ Vanhoutte Renissance Spireaa204/ Blue Spruce Sedum (36/ 6 Paks)ENCN312/ Sunsplash Sedum (2 6paks)190 Red Carpet Sedum(32 / 6paks)40/ Vanhoutte Renissance Spireap6/ ToTr Spireae6/ To/rrSpiprea6666g(p)p12/ A2/12/AAngelingelieliaaan Suan Suudududmm (2 62 62paks)paks)s)p(p))666/ P6/ Pacachsandrandra (6, 6(6, 6ppaks666/ P/hd(6 66kaks)s)ssaksss)))akssag11/Blue Angel HostaAAAAAAAAAAl11tHHAeAaosHelgAne a10 Montana Hostaaaoo00tVALO6/ Taunton Japanese YewppEETOp6/ Taunton Japanese Yew6/ Taooonone e Ypaann napaappaappaYewELEVAELEVAELeseTOR LOOR LapY10/ Minute Man Hostainne MstataHosYYENg10 Hedge Coteneaster1edeeCoCoede17/ Technito Arb.b.booo18 Hedge Cottoneasterrr18 Hedge CottoneastererereneAnnual Flowersualuual FererAunuuAnnual FlowersaowownnunuuuuAnnual FlowersnnnnererrerrrrsssrrrsssATTOOOOOWWWWWWOOOOOOOOODD90 Select Hosta PlantsaaaaaatootccSS07/ Super Star Spirea3/ Norway Sprucea8/ Tor SpireaT/11/ Karl Foerster Grass20" high Wall with stone caps for bench65 so far30060120SCALE IN FEETDesign NotesDORA NumbersLot 1DORA AREA = 32001+- sfLot Area = 73072+- sf32004/73072 = 43.80%Lot 2DORA AREA = 10750+-sfLOT AREA = 63143+- sf10750/63143 = 17.02%Platia PlaceHwy 394 and 169Staint Louis Park, Mn 1845 Wisconsin Ave. No. Golden Valley, MN 55427 Tel. (763)544-4215old hands at new designold hands at nLandscape PlanScale: 1 inch = 30 feetAugust 24, 2017Planting Diagram: Planting holes will be appromimetlytwice the size of the plant mass.Excess soil over the root ﬂare will beremoved and the root ﬂare will be atthe surface of the installed plants.The bottom of the plant mass willsit on stable soil, possibly existingsoil of the site if they are the correctheight.The plants will be backﬁlled with the prepared planting soils and water into be sure all soils are wet.The planting soils will be graded to have a saucer effect to retain water,The planting hole will be lightly covered with about 1" of mulch.Plant Materials: All materials will be of the highest standard possible. For comparison, they will need to be on parwith the high end wholesal outletsPlant Inspection: The Builders agent will be advised of all shipments and review the condition of the plants when they arrive on site. At that time materials can be refused by the agent.Plant Maintenance: The installer will be responsible for all maintenance of the plant materials from the moment ofdelivery to the site until the Owner will take responsibility at the time of completion. The installer is responsible to care for the plants so they do not get damaged by storm, theft, or vandalism. Replacement will be at installers expense for the above situations.Watering and related care: The installer will be responsible for the watering and other care of materials at all timesduring the project. Neglected plants can be declared unﬁt by the agent on the site.Planting instruction: When referring to the planting soil, the term will refer to the prepared soil for planting of plantingsThe soil will be the equivalent of the planting mix on 40% compost, 40% top soil, and 20% sand. Onthe agreement of the Agent on site, some soil from the site may be used as a mix with the above materials to make the local planting soil.All trees, shrubs, perennials, evergreens and other plants will be planted with the following instructions.Roots of potted plants will be scoured if they have developed any roots growing around the pots,All larger plants will be planted as per the attached sketch to insure that the bottom of the root massis sitting on stable soil so the plants will be stable and will not sink into a soil mix.All plants will be planted a few inches above the natural soil to provide drainage. Shade, Ornamentaland Evergreen trees will be planted to the root ball (after any excess soil is removed from the plants)So they are about 2" above the natural soils. Smaller plants will not be planted as high.Mulching: All planting beds will be mulch with a double shredded hardwood mulch at 3" deep except immediately over the root mass of the installed mulch. Those areas should be less tha 1" deep.Existing soilto be rughedup to preventglazing.Prepared soils tobe used as backﬁllRoot FlareSaucerMulch* All areas where plants are will be mulched with Double ShreadedHardwood mulch* Colors are not true to plants, but tell difference between groups* Lawn areas are only on the south side of the buildings and are green* The ﬂowered mulch in front of the Hotel is for annual ﬂowers * The colored area on the south side of the Condos is Native Grass * Walks by the arptments will be a rock mulch that will be pourous Irrigation* All Landscaped areas will be irrigatedTrees, shrubs, Flowers will all be irrigated by drip irrigationLand areas with be watered by Mini Roters because of space & water conservation and the ability to all water to soak in not run off.* The Dog walk area will have spray irrigation and not drip.* The Dog walk is total fenced with gates at both areas. Island detail for tree plantingCurbPlanting soil typical Top soil,sand, compost equalShredded hardwoodmulch, 3" deep no fabricTree Root Ballall rope and uppersteel basket removedTree trunk (protectedat all times, protectedfor ﬁrst winter with whiteplastic coverDrip irrigation withinentire plating areaN 87Ā10'19" E 632.59317.3417 17 R=788.53 Δ =07°43'57" L=106.42 R=788.53 Δ =35°14'17" L=484.96 CURBCURBCURB6' SIDEWALK6PROPOSED BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDING3 PARKING SPACESTRASH EXIT ONLY DROPOFFTWO WAYTWO WAYTWO WAYTWO WAYTWO WAYVISITOR PARKINGPROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTVISITOR PARKING24.00 24.00 24.00 TWO WAYCCCCCCCCCCCC24.00 CCCCC C C C C VISITOR PARKINGH/CH/CH/CH/CH/C8.50 8.00 18.00 H/CH/CH/CMOVE IN STAGINGDELIVERY STAGINGDRIPLINEDRIPLINE10" LOCUST 5" LOCUST10" LOCUST18" LOCUST18" CATALPA5" CATALPA (DEAD)8" CATALPA22" ELM13" ELM18" BOX ELDER2X8" ELM8" SPRUCE14" SPRUCE16" SPRUCE18" SPRUCE22" SPRUCE14" SPRUCE22" SPRUCE14" ELM14" ASH20" ASH18" MAPLE16" ASH18X16" ASH10X14X14" SOFT MAPLE22" LINDEN28" SOFT MAPLE12X12X10" ELM20" ASH20X10" LOCUST6" LOCUST8" BOX ELDER14" HACKBERRY20" LOCUST22" LOCUST4 EXTERIOR BIKES4 EXTERIOR BIKES6 EXTERIOR BIKES25.00 25.00 24.00 24.00 11 PARKING SPACES898898898900900900 900900900900900 900 900902902902902902 902902 902 902 904904904904904904 904904904904904904906906 906906906906906906908 904904902902902900902900902904904906902902906904902904 904904904904Study Session Meeting of September 25, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: Proposed Redevelopment – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini’s site)Page 2