HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/06/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 12, 2017
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
2. 6:35 p.m. Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing
Preservation Policies
3. 7:35 p.m. Fastpitch Softball Facilities
4. 8:35 p.m. Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
9:05 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini’s site)
6. Alternative Development Concept Plan for “The Elmwood”
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: June 12, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 19 and June 26, 2017
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
Special Study Session scheduled for June 19 and the regular Study Session on June 26.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the
Special Study Session scheduled for June 19 and the regular Study Session on June 26.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – June 19 and June 26, 2017
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 19 and June 26, 2017
JUNE 19, 2017
6:15 p.m. – Special Study Session – Council Chambers
Tentative Discussion Items
1.Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended 12/31/16 – Administrative Services
(30 minutes)
The City Auditor will present the annual audit results and opinion issued on the 2016
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
2. SLP Policing Model/Scenario Discussion – Police/Administrative Services (30 minutes)
The Police Chief and City Manager will present a plan and schedule for a series of study session
discusisons to better acquaint the Council with the SLP policing model, policies, and training. This
would also include discussion around policing scenarios and crisis communications.
JUNE 26, 2017
6:30 p.m. – Special City Council Meeting – Council Chambers
Immediately following Special City Council Meeting – Community Room
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2.Flavored Tobacco – Inspections (45 minutes)
Discussion on tobacco licensing alternatives to restrict the sale of various flavor enhanced products.
3. 2018 Budget – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
Staff will review with Council the upcoming items regarding the 2018 budget and
recommendations regarding the timeline and guidelines. This discussion is to allow Council to
provide direction on how to proceed with 2018 budget preparation and to inform staff about
other information they may want to have during the upcoming process.
4.The NEST – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
As a follow-up to the presentation made to the City Council on May 1, staff desires to discuss
the City Council’s interst in pursuing the request made by the NEST board to help make this
space become a reality.
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
5. 2017 May Monthly Financial Report
6. Vision 3.0 Update
Future Council Requested Study Session Discussion Items – Dates TBD
(NOTE – the following are in no priority order)
•Living Streets Policy
•Walker Building
•Bird Friendly Glass
•Streetlight Pollution/Dark Skies
•Youth Advisory Committee
•Election Process Discussion (Continued)
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 12, 2017
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing Preservation
Policies
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of the report is to review the
specifics related to the implementation of a local Advanced Notice of Sale policy and an Eviction
for Cause policy and the impact such policies would have regarding the preservation of naturally
occurring affordable multi-family residential rental housing in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the council want to consider adopting a policy that would
require multi-family residential property owners intending to sell their property to notify the city
in advance of entering into a purchase agreement? Does the council want to consider adopting a
policy that would require multi-family residential rental property owners to terminate residential
leases only when they have “just cause”? Will the adoption of these policies result in the
preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) or the protection of low income
tenants? Should we engage stakeholders in the discussion including property owners and
managers?
SUMMARY:
At the November 11, 2016 city council study session, the council reviewed a number of strategies
and tools to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low and moderate
income households in our community.
Two of the policies identified by the council for further discussion included the following:
•Advance Notice of Sale Period: Require advance notice prior to sale of affordable multi-
family properties
•Just Cause Tenant Protection, Exclusionary Admission Standards
Staff is participating in a workgroup facilitated by the City of Minneapolis to explore the viability
of implementing an Advance Notice of Sale. The workgroup includes representatives from
several cities, the state, Hennepin County, Met Council, housing advocate groups and Family
Housing Fund. ULI MN has also scheduled a work group meeting for June 8 to explore housing
preservation tools and policies and share ideas on ways to move forward effective local
government practices that will preserve existing market affordable housing choices.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing Preservation Policies
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the November 11, 2016 council study session, the council reviewed a
number of strategies and tools to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing for
low and moderate income households in our community.
This report focuses on two of the strategies identified:
•“Advance Notice of Sale Period” of affordable multi-family rental developments
•“Just Cause Tenant Protection”
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 any 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 the state and
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.
Staff is participating in a workgroup that includes representatives from other interested
communities and housing industry agencies and advocates to explore the issues related to
implementation of an Advance Notice of Sale policy/ordinance at the local and regional level.
Tim Thompson from the Social Justice Center is a member of the work group and will be in
attendance at the council meeting.
Key Policy Factors:
What Action Triggers Advance Notice Requirement?
•Intent of owner 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.
What is the definition of a NOAH building?
•A NOAH building is any property charging a rental amount affordable to a household at
60% Areas Median Income (AMI) or below?
•Applies if at least one unit is affordable to a household at 60% AMI.
(* Question to consider - Should the threshold be a little above what we want – for example
80% - so that owners can’t manipulate rents to avoid the policy?)
Should the Policy apply to all buildings or only NOAH buildings – how do we identify a NOAH
building?
•Requiring all rental properties to give notice might be the most equitable but you run the
risk of high end properties objecting to this requirement imposed on them when it is
irrelevant to them. We could be criticized/challenged for regulating sales of buildings
irrelevant to the purpose of the policy. There is no justification for requiring high end
properties to notify the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing Preservation Policies
• Should we require that rental information be collected in connection with rental licensing
or can it be the owner’s responsibility to determine if they meet the definition of a NOAH
property?
• Should the policy only apply to buildings of a certain size? 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.
How long should the notice period be?
• 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 identified “preservation buyers”.
• 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.
Second Phase of Notice – Buyer gives notice to Tenants
• Once the sale is complete, the buyer will give notice to tenants that the property is under
new ownership and the buyer would be required to give 90 day notice to the tenants before
any lease changes, rent increases or any eviction without cause (non-renewals) can be
initiated.
Enforcement
• It has been suggested that we could tie the notice obligation to the rental license or Point
of Sale ordinance. These seem to be the most appropriate areas of the code to add the
notice requirement but enforcement could be a challenge.
• If it is discovered that an owner is about to complete a sale and hasn’t given the city notice,
the Tenant’s Remedies Action allows for a summary proceeding to be brought by the city
or tenant but this would require legal action. Note - If the sale is completed without giving
notice, the sale cannot be undone. How does the seller/buyer remedy the situation?
Options include:
o Fine the Seller: May have little or no impact. 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.
o License Suspension, Revocation, Denial and Non-Renewal Withhold Rental
License: Any of these action would be appropriate for failure to comply with
provisions of the rental ordinance. This could be somewhat counterintuitive and
could possibly displace residents or prevent the rental of vacant units. Also, there
is a question of how does the buyer remedy the violation.
o Fine the Buyer: The advance notice requirement applied to the previous owner, not
to the buyer. Most other jurisdictions opted for civil fines for properties that did
not comply with the notice requirements, most ranging from $200 to $500. The
city could issue fines, fees and/or a criminal charge accompanied by a fine for
failure to comply with the ordinance.
o Extend the period prohibiting lease changes, non-renewals and rent increases to 6
months following the sale of the property?
Legal Authority
The city’s legal counsel has expressed that there are some uncertainties regarding the
implementation of an advance notice policy. There is no enabling legislation that specifically
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing Preservation Policies
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.
Apartments by Property Size in SLP
Units in
Property
Properties
Number
Percent
Units
Number
Percent
3 to 15 94 49% 895 10%
16 to 25 19 10% 397 4%
26 to 50 22 12% 858 9%
51 to 99 13 7% 909 10%
Over 100 41 22% 6,130 67%
Total 189 100% 9,189 100%
NEXT STEPS:
Notice of Sale Period Policy: Should council indicate interest in moving forward on
implementation of an Advance Notice of Sale Policy, staff will address any issues or concerns
raised by the council and work with our legal counsel to prepare a draft ordinance to present for
further discussion at a future study session.
II. EVICTION FOR CAUSE POLICY:
Basic Minnesota state law does not require landlords to provide justification when terminating a
tenancy at the end of a lease term. A landlord is expected to provide an explanation only when
filing an eviction action. However, they are allowed to non-renew an existing tenant’s lease
without reason and an eviction action can eventually be based and justified on such a nonrenewal
if the tenants does not vacate the unit. With a tight rental market, it has become more common for
landlords to only offer prospective renters month to month or similar short term leases.
The lack of just cause protections can place renter households in unstable housing situations. It is
reasonable to assume that a landlord should indefinitely renew a “good” tenant’s lease, regardless
of a year or month to month term. If the tenant pays on time and treats the apartment well, the
landlord creates work and expense for themselves if they do not renew the tenant's lease. This
keeps most renter households in long term, stable housing situations but without a restriction on
lease non-renewals, tenants can be left without assurance of a long term housing commitment. It
should be noted that landlords sometimes choose to non-renew a lease to renters where they may
have a just cause for eviction because it does not cause them considerable effort and expense to do
so.
Possible benefits of an Eviction for Cause policy:
• Helps combat discriminatory, unjustified and arbitrary lease non-renewals and
evictions.
• Provides a more coherent and standardized understanding of lease termination for both
the tenant and the landlord.
• Could help retain housing stability for tenants in properties experiencing an ownership
transfer.
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing Preservation Policies
Minnesota Law
In residential tenant/landlord contracts, Minnesota does not have any protections against landlord
lease non-renewal or eviction of the tenant without cause with the exception of two state statutes
offering tenants limited protection against retaliatory eviction, notice to vacate or rent increases in
situations where tenants have affirmatively requested repairs or made similar demands.
Also, Minnesota law does not provide any statutory provision that specifically enables
municipalities to create provisions restricting a landlord’s ability to non-renew a rental lease at the
end of the lease term.
Legal Authority
The city’s legal counsel has expressed that there are some uncertainties regarding the
implementation of an Eviction for Cause policy. There is no enabling legislation that specifically
allows the city to enact an Eviction for Cause provision. Lack of direct authority and the fact that
this has not been tested in Minnesota could expose the city to a legal challenge.
Summary of a Proposed Ordinance
When applying for a rental license, the licensee would agree to include the just cause eviction
standards in their lease. The landlord would still be able to terminate a lease for tenancy but only
by proving the existence of one of the following:
• Nonpayment of rent
• Repeated late payment of rent
• Creating a nuisance or conducting illegal acts within the premises
• Causing damage to the property
• Material breach of lease
• Repeated breach of lease
• Illegally subletting
• Refusing to provide landlord access for repair
• Removal of unit from market:
Demolition of the unit
Permanent removal from rental housing use
• Major renovation, uninhabitable for ≥ 30 days
• Conversion of unit to owner's residence
• Occupancy declared illegal by government
• Tenant no longer qualified (subsidized housing)
• Crime Free addendum violations
This policy would not limit the landlord from implementing a rent increase at the time of lease
renew. Some policies have included language addressing rent increases similar to the language
listed below:
• Refusing to reasonably renew (reasonable rent increases allowed with proper notice as
long as unit remains at that rent should the tenant choose to move)
Current Laws in Other Cities and States
HOME Line researched Just Cause eviction protections across the US and identified 2 states and
16 cities that have enacted Just Cause eviction laws. The states of New Jersey and New Hampshire
offer statewide protections while cities in California, Maryland, New York, Washington, and the
District of Columbia have local protections. Just Cause laws commonly accompany local rent
control laws–in 14 of the 16 municipalities researched, the cities have or just recently enacted rent
control or rent stabilization requirements. This ensures that tenants benefiting from affordable, rent
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Advance Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause Affordable Housing Preservation Policies
controlled units cannot be unjustly removed from their homes in order for the landlord to increase
rents.
It is should be noted that other states may have different enabling legislation that specifically
allows municipalities to enact Just Cause provisions in their communities. Also, there are some
rental properties in Minnesota that do require just cause for lease termination or lease nonrenewal.
Tenants living in certain federal subsidized housing (e.g. Public Housing, Project Based Section
8, Section 42 Tax Credit Program, and USDA Rural Development) are currently protected against
evictions without cause.
Enforcement
The ordinance would be written into the rental housing subdivision of the code. Failure to comply
could result in fines, fees and/or a criminal charge. Tenants could also pursue legal action to
challenge a non-renewal without just cause.
Alternative
A less restrictive approach may be to consider an ordinance that would allow non-renewals but
require a 90 day (or longer) notice period before a no-cause termination of tenancy can be issued
to a tenant.
NEXT STEPS:
Eviction for Cause Policy:
ULI of MN has convened a workgroup of city, state, county, housing industry and advocates
interested in exploring strategies and tools for preserving NOAH properties. Eviction for Cause is
one of the topics they plan to discuss. Should council indicate an interest in moving forward on
implementation of an Eviction for Cause policy, staff will seek input from the ULI workgroup and
the city’s legal counsel to address issues or concerns raised by the council and prepare a draft
ordinance to present for further discussion at a future study session.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 12, 2017
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fastpitch Softball Facilities
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Members of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
(PRAC) will be in attendance to share with Council their recommendation based on the results
from the task force process that was used to study this matter. The recommendation from PRAC
is that staff should be directed to work with the school district to explore constructing fastpitch
softball fields at the Middle School Site, which is identified as Option 2A in the attachments. The
motion passed 7 - 0.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of the recommendation from the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission?
SUMMARY: Based on concerns expressed by the girls Fastpitch Softball Association regarding
field equity, council authorized staff to form a task force to look at existing field conditions and,
if need be, opportunities for creating additional fastpitch softball fields. The findings and
recommendations of the task force were presented to the Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission (PRAC) on May 3, 2017.
The task force was chaired by Elizabeth Griffin from PRAC. Other task force members included
Tiffany Hoffman (PRAC), Andy Ewald and Tom Bravo from the School District, city staff, Sara
Collins and Charlie Gross from the Fastpitch Softball Association and Amy Burns from the High
School girls fastpitch booster club.
Candace Amberg from WSB was hired to assess the current number of fields available given the
number of participants in the fastpitch softball program, as well as lay out options of where
additional fields could be constructed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Council authorized staff to spend $20,000
from the Park Improvement Fund (PIF) on consulting services. Future budget considerations or
impacts depends on the action the Council wishes to take.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Master Plan Cost Estimates
Needs Assessment with Field Design Options
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Fastpitch Softball Association primarily utilizes one of the fields at Aquila
Park, Pennsylvania Park, two fields at the Middle School and Bronx Park. In 2015, the Fastpitch
Association approached city staff to discuss the opportunities of gaining more field space in St.
Louis Park. To fully understand the constraints of field space, in November 2015 city staff toured
with Fastpitch Association members all field possibilities. After the tour, it became clear to all
involved that St. Louis Park has limited space for additional fields. In order to add new fastpitch
softball fields, another park use would likely be impacted or displaced. The focus then shifted to
the possibility of upgrading existing fields. In May, 2016 city staff, along with Fastpitch Board
Members, held a neighborhood meeting at Pennsylvania Park to discuss upgrades and
improvements of batting cages, dugouts and a drinking fountain with the neighborhood residents.
Those improvements took place in the summer of 2016. In May 2016, city staff helped the
Fastpitch Association write for and receive a grant from the Minnesota Twins Fund and Hennepin
County Youth Sports Grant to assist with funding items for the Fastpitch Association including
improvements at Pennsylvania Park. The City paid for the majority of the improvements made to
that field.
Current Field Assessment and Fastpitch Field Options: The task force met five times:
November 28, 2016, December 19, 2016, January 11, 2017, March 1, 2017 and April 11, 2017.
The task force then presented recommendations to Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission on
May 3, 2017.
Candace Amberg, a landscape architect from WSB, worked with the task force to assess the current
fields that the girl’s fastpitch association was using. Her independent assessment was that the girl’s
fastpitch association has enough fields to meet their current needs. Ms. Amberg also looked at the
little league and other youth sports to determine how many times they were using a field a night.
In the assessment, it is referred to as “possible events per night”. Through this assessment, she did
find that girls fastpitch is only having one event per night (game or practice) while other sports are
having two events per night. Due to the tight field constraints experienced by all youth
associations, it is important to note that we are recommending that two events per night should be
a standard. We realize that on fields without lights, practices need to start at 5:30 p.m. and that is
inconvenient to parents. Other sports are starting at that time to maximize the use of field space
which girl’s fastpitch will need to do as well.
The needs assessment shows the current numbers for fastpitch softball where at 100 girls in 2016
when the task force was started. Fastpitch indicated that they ultimately believe they will grow by
60%. While that is a very ambitious number, the assessment was done for 25% and 60% growth.
If the fastpitch softball numbers grow an additional 25%, our current fields would be at maximum
capacity. The current City fields cannot support a 60% growtj in numbers. We would need
additional fields to accommodate their needs.
After looking at all possible areas to build fastpitch fields in the city, the task force came up with
five options. WSB conducted a Fields Assessment Analysis, which is attached. The Fields
Assessment Analysis shows diagrams of the layout of each option along with the cost estimate, as
well as, how many events the fields can accommodate and how it fits with the current numbers,
25% and 60% growth of their association.
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities
Option 1A: Aquila Park
Field #4 is currently a fastpitch softball field with a 200 foot permanent fence. This option
reconstructs all four fields by reorienting them into a pinwheel formation. It converts field #1,
which is currently used for adult softball, and changes it into a fastpitch field by removing the
longer outfield fence and constructing a permanent fence at 200 feet. This creates a loss in revenue
for the City of $25,000 because we have to cut back on our adult softball program. The adult
program (men, women and co-rec) use fields with fences at 275 feet. The fastpitch girls program
wants to move the fences to the regulation 200 feet. Fastpitch feels that they need to have
permanent fencing on a regulation 200 foot field.
Total cost estimate for Option 1A = $2,220,473
Option 1B: Aquila Park
This option reconstructs field #1 to permanently minimize the field from 275 feet to 200 feet to
change it to a fastpitch field. It converts field #1, which is currently used for adult softball, and
changes it into a fastpitch field by removing the longer outfield fence and constructing a permanent
fence at 200 feet. This creates a loss in revenue for the City of $25,000 because we have to cut
back on our adult softball program. The adult program (men, women and co-rec) use fields with
fences at 275 feet. The girl’s fastpitch program wants to move the fences to the regulation 200 feet.
Fastpitch feels that they need to have permanent fencing on a regulation 200 foot field.
Total cost estimate for Option 1B = $428,289
Option 2A: Middle School
This option would create a complex at the Middle School by providing three fastpitch fields
orientated in a three-fourths pinwheel. Two of the fields would have permanent fencing and the
third field would have temporary fencing to allow for middle school use. This modification would
accommodate most of the fastpitch tournament needs and is in close proximity to Pennsylvania
Park where there is one dedicated fastpitch field. This option would require the City to work with
the School District and would not displace any city programs. The Fastpitch Softball Association
can continue to use Aquila Park for tournaments in addition to this site.
Total cost estimate for Option 2A = $728,755
Option 2B: Middle School
This option would increase the Middle School’s complex to four fastpitch fields. Three fields
would have permanent fencing and the fourth would have temporary fencing to allow for middle
school use. In this option, the city would be required to purchase property from the adjacent
property owner located on the east side of the Middle School. This modification would
accommodate all fastpitch tournament needs and would keep fastpitch all at one site. This option
would require the city to work with the School District and would not displace any city programs.
Total cost estimate for Option 2B = $1,956,943
(Including estimated purchase price for property)
Option 3: Dakota Park
This option would reconstruct two adult softball fields to create three fastpitch fields with
permanent fencing. Converting these fields to fastpitch fields would be extremely costly due to the
extensive regrading of the site to alter direction for drainage. Excavation should be avoided at this
site due to the subsoil contamination issues. It converts two fields that are currently used for adult
softball and changes it into a fastpitch field by removing the longer outfield fence and constructing
a permanent fence at 200 feet. This creates a loss in revenue for the City of $20,000 because we
have to cut back on our adult softball program.
Total cost estimate for Option 3 = $1,502,588
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The Girls Fastpitch Association currently uses Aquila Park
for tournaments. City staff put up temporary fences during tournaments so that all fields have 200
foot outfields. The adult program (men, women and co-rec) use fields with fences at 275 feet. The
girl’s fastpitch program wants to move the fences in to the regulation 200 feet. Fastpitch feels that
they need to have permanent fencing on a regulation 200 foot field. The city also offers a kickball
league that plays at Aquila Park. The longer field fences at 275 are adequate for that program.
At the May 3, 2017 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) meeting, the task force
presented the findings. The recommendation from the PRAC is as follows:
Commissioner Hagemann made a motion to move forward presenting Option 2A to City Council.
Commissioner May seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7 – 0.
NEXT STEPS: If Council is in agreement with the recommendation from PRAC, staff will begin
discussions with the school district staff. The site layout will be examined to see if the entire school
site as well as Lamplighter Park (adjacent to the school property) can be reconfigured to
accommodate this plan.
WSB Project:Fastpitch Field Feasibility Study
Project Location:City of St. Louis Park
City Project No.:
WSB Project No.:2296‐120
Date: 6/6/2017
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
1A - AQUILA
Site Work & Development of (2) Fast Pitch Fields
MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $39,431.25 $39,431.25
200' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE EACH 2 $168,000.00 $336,000.00
REMOVALS LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
SITE EARTHWORK & IMPORT LUMP SUM 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 3.75 $3,500.00 $13,125.00
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BUDGET)LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
BITUMINOUS TRAILS LIN FT 1,300 $30.00 $39,000.00
CONCRETE PADS IN CENTER (HEAVY DUTY)SQ FT 5,000 $10.00 $50,000.00
EROSION CONTROL FENCE LIN FT 3,000 $3.50 $10,500.00
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES/ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
LANDSCAPING BUDGET LUMP SUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
$828,056.25
$82,805.63
$165,611.25
$1,076,473.13
Lighting for (4) Fields
LED LIGHTING FOR 4 FIELDS (25% less for other type)LUMP SUM 1 $550,000.00 $550,000.00
Development of (2) Adult Fields
275' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE EACH 2 $220,000.00 $440,000.00
$440,000.00
$66,000.00
$88,000.00
$594,000.00
$2,220,473.13
ADDITIONAL: Relocation of (1) Adult Field Off-Site
RELOCATION: 275' FIELD /W PERMANENT FENCE EACH 1 $220,000.00 $220,000.00
RELOCATION: REMOVALS LUMP SUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
RELOCATION: LIGHTING LUMP SUM 1 $235,000.00 $235,000.00
RELOCATION: SITE EARTHWORK LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
RELOCATION: EC FENCE LIN FT 1,000 $3.50 $3,500.00
RELOCATION: EC MEASURES/ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$515,500.00
$77,325.00
$103,100.00
$695,925.00
MASTER PLAN ESTIMATES
Estimates shown are at a master plan level only and do not account for actual site conditions or unknown factors that may affect actual construction costs.
Estimates shown only account for the work within field construction limits. Not included in estimates are additional costs for utility work and connections
beyond the field construction area, and additional field amenities such as concessions, restrooms, etc.
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY & MOB (15%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
TOTAL:
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY & MOB (15%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
TOTAL:
ADDITIONAL TOTAL:
AQUILA 1A OVERALL TOTAL:
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 5
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
1B - AQUILA
Development of (1) Fast Pitch Field
MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $10,193.75 $10,193.75
200' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE EACH 1 $168,000.00 $168,000.00
REMOVALS LUMP SUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 0.25 $3,500.00 $875.00
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BUDGET)LUMP SUM 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
$214,068.75
$21,406.88
$42,813.75
$278,289.38
Lighting for (1) Field
LED LIGHTING FOR 1 FIELD (25% less for other type)LUMP SUM 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
$428,289.38
ADDITIONAL: Relocation of (1) Adult Field Off-Site
SEE AQUILA 1A FOR ITEMIZED COSTS LUMP SUM 1 $695,925.00 $695,925.00
$695,925.00
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
2A - MIDDLE SCHOOL
Development of (3) Fast Pitch Fields
MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $26,456.25 $26,456.25
200' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE EACH 2 $168,000.00 $336,000.00
200' FIELD W/TEMPORARY FENCE EACH 1 $86,000.00 $86,000.00
REMOVALS LUMP SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
SITE EARTHWORK LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 1.25 $3,500.00 $4,375.00
BITUMINOUS TRAILS LIN FT 225 $30.00 $6,750.00
CONCRETE PADS (HEAVY DUTY)SQ FT 1,000 $10.00 $10,000.00
EROSION CONTROL FENCE LIN FT 2,000 $3.50 $7,000.00
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES/ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$560,581.25
$56,058.13
$112,116.25
$728,755.63M.S. 2A OVERALL TOTAL:
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
TOTAL:
AQUILA 1B OVERALL TOTAL:
ADDITIONAL TOTAL:
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 6
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
2B - MIDDLE SCHOOL
Development of (4) Fast Pitch Fields
MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $45,016.25 $45,016.25
200' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE EACH 3 $168,000.00 $504,000.00
200' FIELD W/TEMPORARY FENCE EACH 1 $86,000.00 $86,000.00
REMOVALS LUMP SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
SITE EARTHWORK & IMPORT LUMP SUM 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 1.75 $3,500.00 $6,125.00
PONDING / RAIN GARDEN LUMP SUM 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BUDGET)LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
CONCRETE PADS (HEAVY DUTY)SQ FT 2,000 $10.00 $20,000.00
EROSION CONTROL FENCE LIN FT 3,200 $3.50 $11,200.00
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES/ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
LANDSCAPING BUDGET LUMP SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
LAND ACQUISITION LUMP SUM 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
POTENTIAL CONTINGENCY FOR WETLAND MITIGATION LUMP SUM 1 $60,000.00 $60,000.00
$1,505,341.25
$150,534.13
$301,068.25
$1,956,943.63
Item No.Description Unit Est. Base
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Base Cost
3 - DAKOTA FIELD
Development of (3) Fast Pitch Fields
MOBILIZATION (5%)LUMP SUM 1 $47,087.50 $47,087.50
200' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE EACH 3 $168,000.00 $504,000.00
REMOVALS LUMP SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
SITE EARTHWORK & IMPORT LUMP SUM 1 $300,000.00 $300,000.00
SITE RESTORATION ‐ SEED ACRE 2.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BUDGET)LUMP SUM 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
BITUMINOUS TRAILS LIN FT 600 $30.00 $18,000.00
CONCRETE PADS (HEAVY DUTY)SQ FT 1,500 $10.00 $15,000.00
EROSION CONTROL FENCE LIN FT 2,500 $3.50 $8,750.00
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES/ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
LANDSCAPING BUDGET LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
POTENTIAL CONTAMINATED SOIL MEASURES LUMP SUM 1 $167,000.00 $167,000.00
$1,155,837.50
$115,583.75
$231,167.50
$1,502,588.75
ADDITIONAL: Relocation of (2) Adult Fields Off-Site
RELOCATION: 275' FIELD W/PERMANENT FENCE (not lighted)EACH 2 $220,000.00 $440,000.00
RELOCATION: REMOVALS LUMP SUM 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00
RELOCATION: SITE EARTHWORK LUMP SUM 2 $50,000.00 $100,000.00
RELOCATION: EC FENCE LIN FT 2,000 $3.50 $7,000.00
RELOCATION: EC MEASURES/ENTRANCE LUMP SUM 2 $5,000.00 $10,000.00
$561,000.00
$84,150.00
$112,200.00
$757,350.00
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
DAKOTA OVERALL TOTAL:
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY & MOB (15%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
ADDITIONAL TOTAL:
M.S. 2B OVERALL TOTAL:
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY (10%):
DESIGN & ENG. (20%):
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 7
Girls Fastpitch Softball Needs Assessment
Project # 02296-120CITY COUNCIL MTG
June 12, 2017 EXISTING SITES
1 Aquila Field #4
2 Middle School
3 Pennsylvania
POTENTIAL SITES FOR REDEVELOPMENT
4 Aquila Fields
5 Middle School
6 Dakota Park
USER GROUP DATA
1
6
2
3
5
4
SLP Fastpitch Potential and Existing Fast Pitch Fields
Hwy 100Hwy 169I-394
I-394
Hwy 7
2016 Annual Use
Organization Team # Events Duration Total Hours # Events Duration Total Hours
SLP - FP Summer D1 - Orange 14 1.5 21 3 1.5 4.5
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Black 14 1.5 21 5 1.5 7.5
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Gray 14 1.5 21 4 1.5 6
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Orange 14 1.5 21 4 1.5 6
SLP - FP Summer D2 - White 14 1.5 21 6 1.5 9
SLP - FP Summer U10 - Black 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U10 - Orange 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U12 19 1.5 28.5 8 1.5 12
SLP - FP Summer U14 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
subtotal 146 219 60 90
SLP - FP Fall U8 8 1.5 12 818
SLP - FP Fall U10 8 1.5 12 818
SLP - FP Fall U12 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall U14 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall U16 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
subtotal 70 105 64 64
Organization Team # Events Duration Total Hours # Events Duration Total Hours
SLP - FP Summer D1 - Orange 14 1.5 21 3 1.5 4.5
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Black 14 1.5 21 5 1.5 7.5
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Gray 14 1.5 21 4 1.5 6
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Orange 14 1.5 21 4 1.5 6
SLP - FP Summer D2 - White 14 1.5 21 6 1.5 9
SLP - FP Summer U10 - Black 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U10 - Orange 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U12 19 1.5 28.5 8 1.5 12
SLP - FP Summer U14 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
subtotal 184 276 80 120
SLP - FP Fall U8 8 1.5 12 818
SLP - FP Fall U10 8 1.5 12 818
SLP - FP Fall U12 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall U14 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall U16 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
subtotal 70 105 64 64
Organization Team # Events Duration Total Hours # Events Duration Total Hours
SLP - FP Summer D1 - Orange 14 1.5 21 3 1.5 4.5
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Black 14 1.5 21 5 1.5 7.5
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Gray 14 1.5 21 4 1.5 6
SLP - FP Summer D2 - Orange 14 1.5 21 4 1.5 6
SLP - FP Summer D2 - White 14 1.5 21 6 1.5 9
SLP - FP Summer U10 - Black 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U10 - Orange 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U12 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer U14 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
SLP - FP Summer Additional team 19 1.5 28.5 10 1.5 15
subtotal 260 390 122 183
SLP - FP Fall U8 8 1.5 12 818
SLP - FP Fall U10 8 1.5 12 818
SLP - FP Fall U12 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall U14 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall U16 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
SLP - FP Fall Additonal team 18 1.5 27 16 1 16
subtotal 88 132 80 80
Practices Home Games
Home Games
USER GROUP DATA
Practices
Practices Home Games
60% Projected
Growth (2022)
25% Projected
Growth (2018)
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 8
Field Availability
1 Field w/out Lights = 76 events Mon-Th / 48-72 events Sat / 48-72 events Sun
Monday - Thursday
5:30/6:00 to sunset; 1.5 hrs per event
1 event per night Mon-Th (5 weeks until May 25) = 4/week; 20 events per season
2 events per night Mon-Th (7 weeks after May 25) = 8/week; 56 events per season
= 76 events available Mon-Th per season (12 weeks)
Saturday
6 events per Saturday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on tournament field (4 weekends removed)
= 72 events available for 12 week season on non-tournament field
Sunday
6 events per Sunday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on tournament field (4 weekends removed)
= 72 events available for 12 week season on non-tournament field
1 Field with Lights = 96 events Mon-Th / 48-72 events Sat / 48-72 events Sun
Monday - Thursday
5:30/6:00 to 9:00/9:30; 1.5 hrs per event
2 events per night Mon-Th (12 weeks) = 8/week
= 96 events available Mon-Th per season (12 weeks)
Saturday
6 events per Saturday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on tournament field (4 weekends removed)
= 72 events available for 12 week season on non-tournament field
Sunday
6 events per Sunday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on tournament field (4 weekends removed)
= 72 events available for 12 week season on non-tournament field
1 Field w/out Lights = 32 events Mon-Th / 30-48 events Sat / 30-48 events Sun
Monday - Thursday
5:30/6:00 to sunset; 1.5 hrs per event
1 event per night Mon-Th = 4/week
= 32 events available Mon-Th per season (8 weeks)
Saturday
6 events per Saturday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 30 events available for 5 week season on tournament field (3 weekends removed)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on non-tournament field
Sunday
6 events per Sunday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 30 events available for 5 week season on tournament field (3 weekends removed)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on non-tournament field
1 Field with Lights = 64 events Mon-Th / 30-48 events Sat / 30-48 events Sun
Monday - Thursday
5:30/6:00 to 9:00/9:30; 1.5 hrs per event
2 events per night Mon-Th = 8/week
= 64 events available Mon-Th per season (8 weeks)
Saturday
6 events per Saturday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 30 events available for 5 week season on tournament field (3 weekends removed)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on non-tournament field
Sunday
6 events per Sunday 9:00 am-6:00 pm (1.5 hrs/event)
= 30 events available for 5 week season on tournament field (3 weekends removed)
= 48 events available for 8 week season on non-tournament field
SLP SUMMER FASTPITCH NEEDS
Current Summer Use per 2016 Schedule
•60 Game Events
•146 Practice Events
= 206 Total Home Events
Projected +25% Growth Needs
•80 Game Events
•184 Practice Events
= 264 Total Home Events
Projected + 60% Growth Needs
•125 Game Events (rounded up)
•260 Practice Events
= 385 Total Home Events
NOTE: Games currently scheduled M-F
SUMMER FIELD AVAILABILITY FALL FIELD AVAILABILITY
SLP FALL FASTPITCH NEEDS
Current Fall Use per 2016 Schedule
•64 Game Events
•70 Practice Events
= 134 Total Home Events
Projected +20% Growth Needs
•80 Game Events
•90 Practice Events
= 170 Total Home Events
NOTE: Games currently scheduled on weekends
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 9
FIELDS•Aquila #4 (lighted; permanent fence - evaluation shows removed time for overlap with HS tonon-lighted field hours, though technically full utilization is possible)•Middle School #1 and #2 (not lighted; temporary fence)•Pennsylvania (not lighted; temporary fence)
SUMMER Field Events:G (Mon-Th) Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Aquila #4 76 0 48 MS Field #1 26 50 72 MS Field #2 26 50 72 Pennsylvania 0 76 72 Total: 128 176 264 = 568 total events
FALLField Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Events:G (Sat) Aquila #4 64 0 30 MS Field #1 32 8 40 MS Field #2 32 8 40 Pennsylvania 32 28 20 Total: 160 44 130 = 334 total events
EXISTING FIELD CAPACITY
•Exceeds 2016 Summer Needs by 362 events
•Exceeds 2016 Fall Needs by 200 events
•Exceeds Summer 25% Growth by 304 events
•Exceeds Summer 60% Growth by 183 events
•Exceeds Fall 20% Growth by 164 events
Existing SLP FP Field Usage
32
1
PennsylvaniaMiddle School #1 & #2
Aquila Field #4
0 100 200
EXISTING & FUTURE NEEDS
•3 fields meet minimum needs, but make growth
for future more difficult with lack of time for
shared use, makeup events and field rest time
•4 fields meet existing and future growth needs
with adequate time for shared use, makeup
events and field rest time
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 10
Option 1A - Aquila Fields
0 60 120
1
23
4
Aquila
Elementary School
W 31st St.Xylon Ave S.FIELDS•Aquila #1 & 4 (lighted; permanent fence)•Pennsylvania Practice Field (not lighted; temporary fence)G=game event; P=practice event
SUMMER Field Events:G (Mon-Th) Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Aquila #1 64 32 48 Aquila #4 64 32 48 Pennsylvania 0 76 72 Total: 128 140 168 = 436 total events
FALLField Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Events:G (Sat) Aquila #1 64 0 30 Aquila #4 64 0 30 Pennsylvania 32 28 20 Total: 160 28 80 = 268 total events
NOTES•All lighted fields accommodate 2 events/weeknight; all summer non-lighted fields accommodate 1event/weeknight for 5 weeks and 2 events/weeknight for 7 weeks based on sunset times; all fallnon-lighted fields accommodate 1 event/weeknight based on sunset times.•Current summer scheduling practices limiting practices to only one per weeknight for duration ofseason do not fully utilize field availability and could reduce Summer surplus by 80 events.•Shared use of field with High School could potentially reduce Summer surplus by 20 events,depending on scheduling.•Additional field time may be needed at the Middle School (not shown) depending on scheduling.•Additional time available if Saturday events extended beyond 6:00 pm.•Fields fully available on Fridays and Sundays for practices, makeup events or field rest time.
OPPORTUNITIES•Potential for (2) 200’ fields to be permanently fenced•Potential for (2) 275’ fields to be permanently fenced•Existing lighting (modifications needed)•Existing irrigation (modifications needed)•Existing amenities (concessions, restrooms, batting cages, etc.)•Parking currently available•Can accommodate tournament needs
CAPACITY
•Exceeds Summer 25% Growth by 172 events
•Exceeds Summer 60% Growth by 51 events
•Exceeds Fall 20% Growth by 98 events
•
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Costs
(includes contingency & design fees)
(2)SLPFP Fields & all Site Work: $1,076,473
Lighting for (4) Fields: $550,000
(2)Adult Fields: $594,000
Total: $2,220,473
4
Additional Cost Considerations
Relocation of (1) Adult Field lighted: $695,925
or Loss of Revenue: $25,000/year
CONSTRAINTS•Potential conflicts with other groups that mayuse this site•Reconfiguring fields into wheel wouldsignificantly increase costs of development•Displaces 1 Adult League field and Cityrevenue or relocation costs• Approx. 32 teams displaced•Approx. $25,000 in total revenue lost•Currently Used By:•SLP Fastpitch (field #4)• Adult Softball• Adult Kickball• Little League
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 11
Option 1B - Aquila Fields
0 60 120
14
Aquila
Elementary School
W 31st St.Xylon Ave S.FIELDS•Aquila #1 & 4 (lighted; permanent fence)•Pennsylvania Practice Field (not lighted; temporary fence)G=game event; P=practice event
SUMMER Field Events:G (Mon-Th) Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Aquila #1 64 32 48 Aquila #4 64 32 48 Pennsylvania 0 76 72 Total: 128 140 168 = 436 total events
FALLField Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Events:G (Sat) Aquila #1 64 0 30 Aquila #4 64 0 30 Pennsylvania 32 28 20 Total: 160 28 80 = 268 total events
NOTES•Field #4: No improvements, left as-is•Field #1: New field for fast pitch•All lighted fields accommodate 2 events/weeknight; all summer non-lighted fields accommodate 1event/weeknight for 5 weeks and 2 events/weeknight for 7 weeks based on sunset times; all fallnon-lighted fields accommodate 1 event/weeknight based on sunset times.•Current summer scheduling practices limiting practices to only one per weeknight for duration ofseason do not fully utilize field availability and would reduce Summer surplus by 80 events.•Shared use of field with High School could potentially reduce Summer surplus by 20 events,depending on scheduling.•Additional field time may be needed at the Middle School (not shown), depending on scheduling.•Additional time available if Saturday events extended beyond 6:00 pm.•Fields fully available on Fridays and Sundays for practices, makeup events or field rest time.
OPPORTUNITIES•Potential for (2) 200’ fields to be permanently fenced with minimal site disruption•Existing lighting (modifications needed)•Existing irrigation (modifications needed)•Existing fencing (modifications needed)•Existing amenities (concessions, restrooms, batting cages, etc.)•Parking currently available
CAPACITY
•Exceeds Summer 25% Growth by 172 events
•Exceeds Summer 60% Growth by 51 events
•Exceeds Fall 20% Growth by 98 events
4
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Costs
(includes contingency & design fees)
(1)SLPFP Field: $278,289
Lighting for (1) Field: $150,000
Total: $428,289
Additional Cost Considerations
Relocation of (1) Adult Field lighted: $695,925
or Loss of Revenue: $25,000/year
CONSTRAINTS•Potential conflicts with other groups that mayuse this site•Displaces 1 Adult League field and Cityrevenue or relocation costs• Approx. 32 teams displaced•Approx. $25,000 in total revenue lost•Currently Used By:•SLP Fastpitch (field #4)• Adult Softball• Adult Kickball• Little League
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 12
1
23
FIELDS•Middle School #1 and #2 (not lighted; permanent fence)•Middle School #3 (not lighted; temporary fence)•Pennsylvania Practice Field (not lighted; temporary fence)G=game event; P=practice event
SUMMERField Events:G (Mon-Th) Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) MS Field #1 56 20 72 MS Field #2 56 20 72 MS Field #3 16 60 72 Pennsylvania 0 76 72 Total: 128 176 288 = 592 total events
FALLField Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Events:G (Sat) MS Field #1 32 8 40 MS Field #2 32 8 40 MS Field #3 32 48 0Pennsylvania 32 48 0 Total: 128 112 80 = 320 total events
NOTES•All lighted fields accommodate 2 events/weeknight; all summer non-lighted fields accommodate 1event/weeknight for 5 weeks and 2 events/weeknight for 7 weeks based on sunset times; all fall non-lighted fields accommodate 1 event/weeknight based on sunset times. •Current summer scheduling practices limiting practices to only one per weeknight for duration ofseason do not fully utilize field availability and would reduce Summer surplus by 108 events.•Assumes tournaments still held at Aquila.•Additional time available if Saturday events extended beyond 6:00 pm.•Fields fully available on Fridays and Sundays for practices, makeup events or field rest time.
OPPORTUNITIES•Potential for (2) 200’ fields to be permanently fenced•Potential for (1) 200’ field to have temporary fencing•Keeps fastpitch use at one site•Can accommodate majority of tournament needs•Close proximity to Pennsylvania Field•Parking currently available•Existing irrigation (modifications likely needed)•Some room for future amenities (batting cages, warm-up areas, etc.)
CONSTRAINTS•Would require partnership with school district (not owned by City)•Potential conflicts/displacement with other groups that use this site•May impact flexible open space for school•Lighting of the fields may be difficult•Currently Used By:• SLP Fastpitch• Soccer• Lacrosse•School: track, gym, etc.
0 60 120
SLP Middle School Pennsylvania Ave. SOption 2A - Middle School CAPACITY
•Exceeds Summer 25% Growth by 328 events
•Exceeds Summer 60% Growth by 207 events
•Exceeds Fall 20% Growth by 150 events
5
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Costs
(includes contingency & design fees)
$728,755
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 13
5
FIELDS•Middle School #1, #2, and #4 (not lighted; permanent fence)•Middle School #3 (not lighted; temporary fence)G=game event; P=practice event
SUMMER Field Events:G (Mon-Th) Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) MS Field #1 56 20 48 MS Field #2 56 20 48 MS Field #3 0 76 48 MS Field #4 16 60 48 Pennsylvania 0 76 72 Total: 128 252 264 = 644 total events
FALLField Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Events:G (Sat) MS Field #1 32 0 30 MS Field #2 32 0 30 MS Field #3 32 30 0MS Field #4 32 10 20 Pennsylvania 32 48 0 Total: 160 88 80 = 328 total events
NOTES•All lighted fields accommodate 2 events/weeknight; all summer non-lighted fields accommodate 1event/weeknight for 5 weeks and 2 events/weeknight for 7 weeks based on sunset times; all fallnon-lighted fields accommodate 1 event/weeknight based on sunset times.•Current summer scheduling practices limiting practices to only one per weeknight for duration ofseason do not fully utilize field availability and would reduce Summer surplus by 128 events.•Additional time available if Saturday events extended beyond 6:00 pm.•Fields fully available on Fridays and Sundays for practices, makeup events or field rest time.•Capacity far exceeds SLPFP needs (almost double), shared use of fields available with groupsthat may be able to use the same field size.
OPPORTUNITIES•Potential for (3) 200’ fields to be permanently fenced•Potential for (1) 200’ field to have temporary fencing•Keeps fastpitch use at one site•Can accommodate tournament needs at this site, Aquila not needed•Parking currently available•Existing irrigation (modifications likely needed)•Additional room for future amenities on acquired property (storage, batting cages, etc)
CONSTRAINTS•Would require partnership with school district (not owned by City)•Requires acquisition of property for Field #4 (estimated purchase price of $400,000-$500,000)•Portion of property required for Field #4 listed on National Wetland Inventory. Additionalinvestigation will be needed to determine if this area will require mitigation or is consideredincidental.•Potential conflicts/displacement with other groups that use this site•May impact flexible open space for school•Lighting of the fields may be difficult•Currently Used By:• SLP Fastpitch• Soccer• Lacrosse•School: track, gym, etc.
0 60 120
1
2
3
4
SLP Middle
School
Franklin Ave.Pennsylvania Ave. SOption 2B - Middle School CAPACITY
•Exceeds Summer 25% Growth by 380 events
•Exceeds Summer 60% Growth by 259 events
•Exceeds Fall 20% Growth by 158 events
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Costs
(includes contingency & design fees)
$1,956,943
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 14
6
Option 3 - Dakota Fields
FIELDS•Dakota #1-3 (not lighted; permanent fence)G=game event; P=practice event
SUMMER Field Events:G (Mon-Th) Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Dakota Field #1 42 34 72 Dakota Field #2 42 34 72 Dakota Field #3 42 34 72 Total: 126 102 216 = 444 total events
FALLField Events:P (Mon-Th) Events:P (Sat) Events:G (Sat) Dakota Field #1 32 18 30 Dakota Field #2 32 18 30 Dakota Field #3 32 28 20 Total: 96 64 80 = 240 total events
NOTES•All lighted fields accommodate 2 events/weeknight; all summer non-lighted fields accommodate 1event/weeknight for 5 weeks and 2 events/weeknight for 7 weeks based on sunset times; all fallnon-lighted fields acommodate 1 event/weeknight based on sunset times.•Current summer scheduling practices limiting practices to only one per weeknight for duration ofseason do not fully utilize field availability and would reduce Summer surplus by 81 events.•Pennsylvania removed from this option.•Additional time available if Saturday events extended beyond 6:00 pm.•Fields fully available on Fridays and Sundays for practices, makeup events or field rest time.•Assumes tournaments still held at Aquila.•Dakota field conversion displaces 2 adult sized fields.
OPPORTUNITIES•Potential for (3) 200’ fields to be permanently fenced•Parking currently available•Existing irrigation (modifications likely needed)•Existing shelter buildings•Existing drinking fountain•Existing batting cages•Keeps Fastpitch use at one site•Can accommodate majority of tournament needs, though kept on Aquila•Room for additional amenities (concessions, storage, batting cages, etc.)
CONSTRAINTS•Would require extensive regrading of the site to alter direction of drainage (high costs)•Potential impact to the swale leading to the storage basin•Need to avoid excavation at this site due to subsoil contamination issues•Lighting of the fields may be difficult•Displaces 2 Adult League fields and City revenue or relocation costs • 32 teams displaced•$20,320 in revenue lost•Currently Used By:• SLP Fastpitch• Adult Softball
0 60 120
1
2
3
Existing Storm
Surge Basin
Peter Hobart
Elementary School
Existing
Baseball Field
Dakota Ave. SCAPACITY
•Exceeds Summer 25% Growth by 180 events
•Exceeds Summer 60% Growth by 59 events
•Exceeds Fall 20% Growth by 70 events
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Costs
(includes contingency & design fees)
$1,502,588
Additional Cost Considerations
Relocation of (2) Adult Fields not lighted:
$757,350 * (*limited space within SLP for both field relocations)
or Loss of Revenue: $20,000/year
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 3)
Title: Fastpitch Softball Facilities Page 15
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 12, 2017
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In anticipation of Council action at its June 19 meeting, a
representative of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and staff desire to present their
recommendation to retain the architectural firm of HGA for the design of the Westwood Hills
Nature Center’s Interpretive Center Building and surrounding area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with staff continuing to move
forward with this project by entering into a contract with HGA for architectural services?
SUMMARY: Staff solicited proposals from architectural firms to design the Westwood Hills
Nature Center’s Interpretive Center Building and surrounding areas. Staff created a Request for
Proposal that was sent out through the Sun Sailor, Quest Construction Data Network, Dodge Data
and Analytics, as well as emailed directly to local and nationwide firms. On April 24, 2017 there
were 11 proposals submitted. Six firms were interviewed on May 10 and 11 by a committee made
up of City staff and George Foulkes from PRAC. Second round interviews were held with two
firms on May 18. We received excellent proposals from firms who were very qualified. On June
7, staff recommended HGA to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission because of their
vast experience with unique architectural design as well as specific expertise in animal exhibit
design and visitor experience. The PRAC made the following recommendation: Commissioner
Cantor made a motion to recommend the City Council enter into a contract with HGA to provide
architectural services for the Westwood Hills Nature Center project. Commissioner Foulkes
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6 – 0. HGA has eight branches located
throughout the country and has been headquartered in the Twin Cities since 1953.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The city would be entering into a $1.3 million
contract with HGA for architectural services which include schematic design, design development,
construction documents and continual work on the project. The City’s CIP has $300,000 in 2017
to begin preliminary design for the construction of a new Nature Center building, and an additional
$700,000 in 2018 for design. The current CIP estimates an $11 million project in 2019.
NEXT STEPS: Enter into a contract with HGA for architectural design services. Staff will provide
the City Council an update at the completion of each step below to check in and affirm direction
to move to the next step:
1. June 19, 2017: Council to officially accept HGA as the architect firm
2. 2017 & 2018: Public input, schematic and design development
3. Early October 2018: Construction Documents
4. 2019 – 2020: Construction with completion in 2020.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent, Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills
Nature Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Ops & Rec, Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City completed a comprehensive Master Plan for the Westwood Hills
Nature Center in May 2016. This plan addresses facility development and programming goals for
the Westwood Hills Nature Center. The plan includes the nature center facilities, outdoor
programming sites, infrastructure and programming needs. The master plan serves as the vision,
guiding principles, resource allocation and action plan to meet the identified needs of the
community and to assist the city in planning for future building development at Westwood Hills
Nature Center. Citizen input played a key role in shaping this plan.
Per the master plan, the new interpretive center building will expand programming, offer rental
opportunities, create a multi-use facility, improve staff workspace, increase storage capacity,
create a separate exhibit/exploration area and accommodate educational groups while allowing the
general public a gathering area where they can enjoy the facility separate from large groups.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Purpose and Goals
Based on the discussion from the October 10, 2016 Council meeting, below are the purpose and
goals for Westwood Hills Nature Center project.
•The current size of the Interpretive Center Building is 2,700 sq. ft. The proposed size of
the building is projected to be 12,000 to 15,000 sq. ft., similar size to Eastman which is
14,000 sq. ft.
•Energy efficient based on the most current standards with a goal of a Net Zero design
•Low maintenance both inside and out
•Building location closer to the parking lot
•Separate community gathering space that does not interfere with programming
•Warmer and inviting feel
•Maintain and expand three classrooms for adult and youth program
•Create the three classrooms so that they can open into one large room for large assembly
programs and rental space
•Flexibility/accommodating for Hearing Loop
•Target audience is everyone
o Increased adult programming outside and inside of Interpretive Center building
o Interactive exhibits that users can enjoy without interfering with programs taking
place
o Increased youth and family programming that can occur simultaneously with
programs occurring in other rooms
•Restrooms available for public even during off hours
•Enhance the existing partnership with St. Louis Park School District through programming
opportunities for Pre-K to senior adults
•Appropriate staff office space and work areas
•Public gathering area (i.e. interpretive exhibits, animal display, etc.)
•Adequate storage locations
•Consider creating a small rental room that can be used by book clubs or neighborhood
groups
Study Session Meeting of June 12, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
NEXT STEPS: Staff will be finalizing the timelines and public input process this summer. We
will be bringing this project back to the City Council throughout the course of the project for input
and policy considerations.
FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The City’s CIP has $300,000 in 2017 to begin
preliminary design for the construction of a new Nature Center building, the current CIP estimates
an $11 million project in 2019. Based on a 20-year bond at a rate of 3.5% (only an estimate) the
annual impact to the medina value home ($240,100) would range $32-$35 per year. The size and
term of the bond will be modified as we annually update the CIP and the estimates.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 12, 2017
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Development – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini’s site)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. Councilmembers should contact staff
with any comments or concerns.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: This report is an update of the application submitted by Mr. William Stoddard,
CEO of Stoddard Companies. A report was sent to the council on March 27, 2017 introducing
the proposal. Since then Mr. Stoddard has refined the plans and submitted an application for
preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development (PUD). The original proposal was for
a 176-unit apartment building and a 111-key hotel. The application is for a 150-unit apartment
building and a 111-key limited service hotel.
The attached concept plan is very similar to the proposal included in the last report. The
apartment building is located on the west side of the property, and the hotel on the east side with
surface parking located between.
The property is currently zoned Office, and as part of the PUD request, the applicant will be
asking for reduced setbacks, and reduced parking for the hotel. The maximum density allowed
for residential in the Office district is 50 units per acre, or more with a PUD. The PUD is 3.13
acres which allows up to 156 units. The requested 150 unit apartment building fits within this
limit. The PUD will be split into two lots. The proposed density for just the residential parcel
would be 89 units per acre, however, additional residential development will not be permitted on
the hotel property.
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. At that
time, it was anticipated that the site could accommodate 5-6 story buildings with a mix of uses
ranging from hotel, medical office, and residential. The proposed plan is consistent with the
city’s expectations for this property.
Mr. Stoddard is in the process of finalizing the amount of the TIF request. He anticipates
submitting the TIF application by the end of June. The apartment building will be subject to the
inclusionary housing policy and both buildings will be subject to the Green Building Policy.
NEXT STEPS: A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 2017. The
applications are also scheduled for a public hearing at the June 21, 2017 planning commission
meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Concept Plans
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager