Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018/04/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. APRIL 18, 2018 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes A. March 7, 2018 B. March 21, 2018 3. Hearings A. Park Village Amendment to Planned Unit Development Location: 5400 Excelsior Blvd. Applicant: Tower Place LLC Case No.: 18-09-PUD 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment STUDY SESSION 1. Comprehensive Plan – Water Resources Discussion If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952.928.2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING and STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 7, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Torrey Kanne (unexcused), Ethan Rickert (youth member) (unexcused) STAFF PRESENT: Joseph Ayers-Johnson, Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther, Josh Nelson, Jim Vaughan, Meg McMonigal, Marney Olson, Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes A. January 17, 2018 Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to approve the minutes of January 17, 2018. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-2 (Peilen and Robertson abstained). B. February 7, 2018 Commissioner Peilen made a motion to approve the minutes of February 7, 2018. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. C. February 21, 2018 Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to approve the minutes of February 21, 2018. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 (Carper abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Park Girls Softball Fields Location: 3110 Xylon Ave. S. Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 18-02-CUP Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 7, 2018 Page 2 Joseph Ayers-Johnson, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. A conditional use permit is being requested for infill and re-grading of the site for first phase construction of upgraded girls’ softball facilities in Aquila Park. Mr. Ayers-Johnson described the site and proposed construction. Mr. Ayers-Johnson discussed the haul route and construction hours. Construction is expected to last from early May to late August. Mr. Ayers-Johnson spoke about tree replacement. He explained that there will be one-to-one caliper inch ratio tree replacement within the park. Mr. Ayers-Johnson stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on February 13. All questions and comments raised seemed to be satisfactorily addressed at the meeting. Chair Robertson asked if hauling would be intermittent or if it would occur throughout construction. Josh Nelson, Park Maintenance Division, responded that at the beginning of the project trucks may not stack consecutively as they will have to compact some of the soil. The Chair asked about the timeline for phase two of the ball parks. Mr. Nelson said at the direction of the City Council only the schedule for phase one has been determined. Commissioner Carper asked who was responsible for lighting. He asked what time lighting is turned off. Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, stated that the lighting will be LED which produces less spill. He said lighting is regulated by timers and on an active evening lights would turn off automatically at 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked who would be responsible for watering of the new trees. Mr. Vaughan said lately the city works with a non-profit partner, Tree Trust, for community tree planting. He said Tree Trust is also hired for about two years after planting to follow-up on monitoring moisture and watering. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 7, 2018 Page 3 Commissioner Tatalovich asked if the city has reached out to Aquila School about construction in regards to summer programming at the park. Mr. Ayers-Johnson said the school district has received notification of the neighborhood meeting and the public hearing. Mr. Vaughan said that the city’s Parks Superintendent will be reaching out to the school in April about the construction and further communication and coordination. The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Peilen made a motion recommending approval of the conditional use permit subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. B. Conditional Use Permit for building addition – Lifetime Fitness Location: 5525 Cedar Lake Road Applicant: Lifetime Fitness Case No.: 18-04-CUP Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to excavate 1,034 sq. cubic yards of soil in connection with construction of a 5,123 sq. ft. addition on the south side of the existing building. Ms. Kramer presented the site plan. She discussed building materials, haul route, construction hours, and the construction timeline. Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented there could be a problem with rush hour traffic and the haul route through that area. Commissioner Carper said it appears that pine trees will be removed during construction. He asked about replacement. Ms. Kramer responded that one significant tree is going to be removed. Three trees will be added as replacement in the new plan. The Chair opened the public hearing. No one was present wishing to speak and the Chair closed the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 7, 2018 Page 4 Commissioner Peilen made a motion recommending approval of the conditional use permit subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion was passed on a vote of 6-0. 4. Other Business: None 5. Communications: None 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. STUDY SESSION The study session began at 6:25 p.m. 1. Comprehensive Plan – Housing Discussion A discussion of the city’s housing programs and the housing section in the Comprehensive Plan update was held. Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor and Deputy Community Development Director, and Marney Olson, Housing Program Coordinator, presented an overview of housing in St. Louis Park. Ms. Olson began the discussion with a summary of past housing actions and programs. Commissioners and staff discussed affordable housing in the city. Questions were raised concerning how affordable housing is defined. Ms. Schnitker and Ms. Olson explained the Met Council’s calculations for affordable housing and St. Louis Park’s share of the region’s projected affordable housing needs. Commissioners discussed the link between affordable housing, housing density and development desirability. Commissioners asked for more information regarding affordable housing’s impact on economic viability of providing street-level commercial uses in mixed-use developments. They also asked if staff have conducted a comparative analysis looking at how St. Louis Park’s housing numbers compare to neighboring cities. Ms. Schnitker explained that a comparative analysis was part of the last comprehensive plan update process, but staff have not conducted such an analysis yet for this plan update. Commissioners and staff discussed target numbers for affordable housing and the appropriate amount of rental housing in the city. Commissioner Carper suggested the city purchase land and create mobile home parks as a way to increase affordable housing in Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 7, 2018 Page 5 the city. Commissioner Robertson suggested exploring rental assistance through businesses and employers. Commissioners asked about food security in the comprehensive plan. Staff explained a study on food access and security in St. Louis Park was planned for after the comprehensive plan update and expects to include this strategy in the health section of the plan. Ms. Schnitker explained some of the city’s most recent affordable housing policies and programs, including the Inclusionary Housing Policy, the Tenant Protection Ordinance, and the Kids in the Park program. She also explained future initiatives for preserving naturally occurring affordable housing including a legacy program and financial incentives for property improvements. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 21, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert, youth member STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther, Meg McMonigal, Jack Sullivan, Karen Barton, Deb Heiser OTHERS PRESENT: Thom Miller, Councilmember Margaret Rog, Councilmember Craig Vaughn, SRF Consulting Ciara Schlichting, Toole Design Group Jeff Miller, HKGi 1. Comprehensive Plan – Mobility and Land Use Discussion Craig Vaughn, SRF Consulting, gave a presentation on the Mobility Plan. Thom Miller said some of the Delta increases seem very significant. Mr. Vaughn responded that the growth seen on regional systems, like Hwy. 7, is affected not only by St. Louis Park but also by adjacent communities. Factors can include things like job growth in downtown Minneapolis or housing growth in suburbs further west. He said he has identified percent growth. One-half percent to 1% would be seen as typical. He stated that 1% is more typical on a regional system. Chair Robertson spoke about the Westmoreland residential area which has no planned future growth. He asked why the traffic volumes would increase there. Mr. Vaughn said that area may need a bit more review. He mentioned some possibilities regarding the increase. He said he needs to look at the model. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the increase may be related to a MN DOT land remnant r-o-w that is zoned for office. Or, perhaps it is a model issue. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 2 Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, said SRF could look at all areas over 1%. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how the numbers were determined. Mr. Vaughn explained that the regional travel demand model comes from the Met Council. Each community in the 7-county area use it to analyze their community. Geographic distribution by transportation analysis zones and socioeconomic data comes from Met Council and then city staff goes through the process identifying land use considerations. SRF receives all the information and puts it into regional travel demand model at the community level and works through the forecasting process. Deb Heiser, Engineering Director, noted that the existing numbers are traffic counts the city has on record. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the numbers reflect the growing aging population. Mr. Vaughn explained how the regional travel demand model is an activity based model which uses trip attractors, origins and destinations. Commissioner Carper said he was uncomfortable with the way the numbers are being presented. He said it should have been stated that we’re looking at a 25 year period. He said he ran a percentage and he sees around a 40% increase of traffic, not the 1.34% SRF provided. He said he’s concerned, for example, with Hwy. 100 experiencing a 10% increase in traffic. France Ave. as a secondary artery coming through the community sees traffic increases of 30-40%. He asked if there will be some infrastructure changes to handle capacity. He commented that the total numbers are small to the community but we are still looking at a great deal of traffic coming through the community. He said he wants to see a third sheet that shows the 25-year mass effect of increase rather than having to run the numbers on 1.34% himself. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said it would be good to see a chart. Commissioner Kanne spoke about the Westwood Nature Center area and other areas in general. She commented that the consultant stated numbers are data driven, but said she wonders if something is missed when we are so focused on data. She commented that there has to be some sort of qualitative review included with these numbers. Mr. Vaughan said it is highly driven on data, but it is an art. He added that this is a preliminary product. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 3 Commissioner Kanne discussed school growth and city activities that will increase traffic. She asked if that sort of information is looked at in forecasting. Ms. McMonigal explained how staff worked together going through every part of the city, zone by zone, and projected. She said the process is primarily land use based and it is an art. Commissioner Peilen stated projections are like this in any field. You try to make sure you have the best available data. Commissioner Person spoke about impacts on infrastructure. Ms. Heiser discussed the city’s Pavement Management plan which started in 2004. Ciara Schlichting, Toole Design Group, provided the presentation on Pedestrian Demand Analysis. Commissioner Kanne asked if the city’s commitment to reduce vehicle miles travel is part of the equation. Mr. Walther responded that it is not directly included at this time. If the city realizes mode shift or similar changes it may be reflected in lower traffic than projected and the city would monitor traffic growth over the course of the plan. Ms. Schlichting gave presentations on the Bike Network Analysis and the Planned Bicycling System. There was a discussion about existing and proposed pedestrian bridges. There was a discussion about the city’s Connect the Park program. Commissioner Kanne indicated she had a difficult time understanding the network analysis maps. Commissioner Carper said he agrees with Commissioner Kanne and he wants to be able to explain the mapping to people. He said he doesn’t understand it at all. He said the color coding shown for his own neighborhood doesn’t make sense. Ms. Schlichting explained the color coding. Commissioner Carper gave specific examples of color coding in Lake Forest neighborhood that don’t make sense to him in terms of biking and road connections. He said he has similar questions about pedestrian connectivity in Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 4 that area. He commented that if he doesn’t trust this part of the map he’s not sure he trusts other parts of the map. Commissioner Johnston-Madison discussed Monterey, 36th St., Belt Line, and west on 36th over to Wooddale. Commissioner Carper stated he’d be glad to spend time clarifying his area with staff and consultants. He said he thinks neighborhood leaders in other areas would be willing to do the same. Mr. Vaughn wrapped up the Mobility portion of the study session. Mr. Walther introduced the Land Use discussion. He spoke about the section titled Why We Are a Livable Community. He said this is the first pass at updating, consolidating and condensing existing goals. Thom Miller asked how Vision 3.0 goals had been reflected in the goals list. Mr. Walther said the land use goals were still supportive of Vision 3.0 goals. There was not a departure from current goals and policies indicated in the Vision 3.0. Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted the goal related to preserving and growing existing businesses and stated that she doesn’t think the city has done enough in its implementation to realize this goal. Ms. McMonigal said we can make it clearer on the implementation and we’re working on the language. She said implementation can also be seen on the ground in the developments we’ve had, and in neighborhood and parks development. Jeff Miller, HKGi consultant, spoke about the land use plan categories. He spoke about the proposal to add a new Transit-oriented Development (TOD) category. He explained this would allow, not require, mixed use around the station areas. It would also allow higher density residential. Ms. Rog asked if the city could be more prescriptive about how the city determines what qualifies as pedestrian scale. Mr. Walther responded that is described in more detail in the current plan and will be included in the new plan in Livable Communities principles. He said it’s really about how buildings approach and meet the public/pedestrian and street network. A variety of factors play into that including how tall are buildings, how close are buildings, are buildings solid walls or do they have transparency with windows? Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 5 Ms. Rog said she thought this was important enough that she wondered if we could come up with specific definitions of what it means. Chair Robertson said the MX designation has general guidelines of scale and the Planning Commission has discussed this a lot. He said he thinks it is very important the city doesn’t define design too much. He said he believes some flexibility is necessary for design professionals, developers and owners to interpret on their own. Chair Robertson stated that the Commission has held conversations about how do we create and use guidelines without the city being the architect. Thom Miller said one of the keys to the description is that the focus of the designation be on building form. He commented that gradation of form is different than our other land use zoning designations. Mr. Walther said following completion of the Comp Plan we will be looking at form-based regulations in more detail. Considering form-based codes can be included in the Comp Plan as an implementation strategy. Ms. McMonigal explained how it has been accomplished already through the Comp Plan and developments through livable community principles. Commissioner Carper stated that he raised the idea of allowing mobile home parks as a means to affordable home ownership. We shouldn’t expect that private property owners would develop mobile home parks. Perhaps city-owned land, or land acquired from county or state could be considered. We would have to find an area where there is not currently residential. Perhaps the light rail station areas would be an appropriate place. Ms. McMonigal said density would come up under residential. TOD is to be around the light rail stations. Mr. Walther commented that Commissioner Carper’s suggestion for mobile home park development near the LRT station areas is inconsistent with of all the public process and the plans that have been completed for the city’s three station areas. Ms. McMonigal added a lot of the work the community has done to study the areas around the stations. These are areas where we want to take full advantage of the transit and the LRT system also needs ridership right next to the station. We are including affordable housing. And with the number of units at the stations it would probably add up to the same number of units. Mr. Walther added that he is hearing an underlying assumption in this that TOD is all rental. There’s nothing in TOD that prohibits multiple family residential ownership options, such as condominium development. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 6 Jeff Miller said at the last Planning Commission land use study session TexaTonka was identified as an area requiring more discussion. Mr. Walther said the Commission remarks were that they wanted to see unique businesses that serve the needs of the neighborhood in TexaTonka area. Mr. Walther added at that time the Commission said if the way to get there is a mixed use development then commissioners seemed supportive of that and we should do all of those parcels as MX. Mr. Walther said he also heard that if MX is the antithesis of that goal then maybe we don’t change it. Commissioner Kanne asked about resident input on this. Jeff Miller said at the neighborhood meeting one of the things we heard was why can’t there be other nodes in the city that get things like Excelsior Blvd. did. He said the question is would that apply to TexaTonka or Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana? Mr. Walther commented that mixed use was consistently discussed by residents at the neighborhood meeting. He said they did hear from multiple people from multiple neighborhoods surrounding Texa Tonka. Ms. Rog said it can be difficult for small businesses to survive because of what the developer needs to make off that space so the number of smaller shops that can exist and be successful is limited. She said she’d want to see that definition evaluated in that context before it came part of the plan. Mr. Walther said staff and planning commission are working on a MX zoning district update which will follow the Comp Plan process. That process will include discussion on ways to explore height bonuses and incentives built into zoning code that might allow for affordable or smaller commercial spaces. Chair Robertson said we‘ve talked about how nice it is to have a nearby corner market but how do you that when businesses can’t make it, and also struggle with parking. It’s a nice goal but is it viable? We haven’t found the answer. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the city has a lack of commercial services. With the Bridgewater proposal small businesses had to move. We’re not accomplishing the goal of having small commercial services and businesses. She added that she likes TOD but doesn’t like 8-10 story buildings though she understands why that is necessary for developers. Ms. Rog suggested that neighborhood residents be surveyed about whether they favored the change or not. There appeared to be consensus among planning commissioners to continue to show a change from commercial to mixed use for the Texa-Tonka mall property Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 7 on the future land use map. There did not appear to be consensus regarding expanding the mixed use designation to the east, west and south. Jeff Miller said the agenda packet provided overview of density recommendations, housing types, new descriptions, and additional language in the industrial land use category. Mr. Walther spoke about transitional industrial areas. Ms. McMonigal spoke about the BP District which was created in the past. Ms. Rog said when she thinks about defining what kind of housing will be allowed it makes her think that innovation will be difficult. She referenced Minneapolis allowing 4-plexes. She asked how innovation would fit in. Jeff Miller said the Comp Plan language about housing types says such as, in order to be illustrative, not to limit it to only the types listed. Jeff Miller highlighted the changes in the Residential Density from the last discussion with the Commission. Carl Robertson asked about the reference to 75-85% residential use in the mixed use district description. He asked if it could also state that there not be more than 15% of ground floor residential use of the ground floor. Mr. Walther stated that staff would not recommend including that level of detail in the comprehensive plan, rather we would include such rules in the zoning code. The discussion about residential is more of a general prediction of the general character of the development or overall gross floor area in the land use category. Thom Miller said he was concerned that TOD would be a PUD replacement. He said he’s concerned because the nature of PUD is that developers partner with city. With TOD, developers could create a very high density development without taking city on as a partner. He said the soft part of the TOD, like pedestrian scale, seems wishy washy and the city wouldn’t have the control it has under a PUD. Jeff Miller responded that the TOD would be a land use category. The PUD could still be used, just like today. The PUD is a zoning tool. TOD wouldn’t replace the PUD, it’s just meant to be more flexible. Thom Miller said that concerns him. Mr. Walther added that later efforts to potentially create a form based code ideally will define better our community goals, so we’d be spending less time negotiating that to happen. That may allow for fewer PUDs long term and people in the community having a little bit better idea of both what’s going to happen (more Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Study Session March 21, 2018 Page 8 predictable) and for developers a more predictable process. It’s would be preferable to layer those basic design expectations into code and get what we’re looking for. Projects would continue to go through Planning Commission review and City Council process. Ms. McMonigal spoke about incremental density which has occurred over the years in response to feedback from the community. Ms. Rog said at the same time it doesn’t hurt to put ideas out there. There was further discussion about the commercial property on the east side of Louisiana Avenue at 27th Street and south of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Planning Commission recommended changing from commercial to medium density residential. There was discussion about the Minikahda storage site located south of the railroad tracks on France Avenue. Staff noted the site is currently industrial, and asked if that was the appropriate long-term use of the property. Staff also noted that a previous suggestion for high density residential in this area in the last comprehensive plan was not well received. After further discussion, planning commissioners recommended a change to medium density residential. This recommendation could spur additional discussion about this site as an isolated remnant industrial site, medium density residential offers a transition between the adjacent existing high density residential to the northwest and the adjacent existing low density residential to the south, and the potential for the site’s access to be from Park Glen Road rather than France Ave could possibly be explored. Meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 Agenda Item 3A 3A. Park Village – Amendment to Planned Unit Development Case No.: 18-09-PUD Location: 5400 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Owner: Tower Place LLC Tower Place LLC Recommended Actions: 1. Chair to open and close the public hearing. 2. Motion to recommend rescinding Resolution 11-132. 3. Motion to recommend approval of Major Amendment to Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions recommended by Staff. Review Deadline: 60 Days: 5/18/2018 120 Days: 7/17/2018 REQUEST: Tower Place LLC requests a major amendment to the Park Village PUD to renovate the Mann Theater building at 5400 Excelsior Boulevard. The application proposes medical office use on the entire first floor of the existing Mann Theater building, and proposes to keep the second floor vacant in the near term. A future phase may include renovating the second floor; while the future uses are unknown at this time, it may be medical office use. The city approved a PUD for the site in 1993, as well as subsequent amendments. One of the most recent approved amendments for the site was 2011; however, some of those approved changes to the site never occurred. As part of this application, the 2011 PUD Amendment would be rescinded. The current application will also convert the former PUD that was approved by resolution to a PUD that is approved by ordinance, due to changes that have occurred in the city code. The amendment process includes rezoning the property from C-2 General Commercial to PUD on the zoning map and a zoning code text amendment. This application requires a public hearing at the planning commission and city council approval of an ordinance. An affirmative vote of four city council members is needed to approve the PUD. Meeting of April 18, 2018 Page 2 Subject: Park Village PUD Amendment SITE LOCATION MAP: SITE INFORMATION: Site Area: 4.03 acres Current Zoning: C-2 General Commercial Proposed Zoning: PUD Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Neighborhood: Wolfe Park Surrounding Land Uses: North: Medical office & surface parking East: Restaurants West: Restaurants & medical office South: Retail and restaurants BACKGROUND: The city first approved the Park Village (Park Commons) development in 1993 (Resolution No. 93-117). At this time a PUD was an overlay district, rather than a distinct zoning district as it is today. The original PUD has been amended several times as the overall site has developed and uses have changed. Several of these amendments relate to this application’s site. City Council approved the following changes in the most recent PUD Amendment (Resolution 11- 132) for the site: 1. Changing the use of the theater mixed-use building to retail only. The upper story containing the theater space would be vacant. The ground floor would contain new retail tenants. Mann Theater Highway 100 McDonald’s PUD Boundary Meeting of April 18, 2018 Page 3 Subject: Park Village PUD Amendment 2. Construction of a new 6,600 square foot building to house the tenants currently in the ground floor of the mixed use building. This building would be located in the parking lot south of the theater. The parking lot would be re-configured to accommodate the new building. 3. Renovations to the McDonald’s building and drive-through lane. Of these changes, only the renovations to the McDonald’s lot were completed. Staff have included the site plan for the McDonald’s renovations in the official exhibits of the draft ordinance, as well as other relevant previous exhibits by reference. Staff recommend rescinding Resolution 11-132 and the obsolete official exhibits contained therein. PUD ANALYSIS: A major amendment to the PUD is necessary because a previous PUD resolution (No. 93-183) included a specific mix of uses that were allowed for the site. The original approvals of Park Village were to construct a retail center with a mix of uses; however, it was contemplated that the site may convert to medical uses at some point in the future. Uses: The current allowed uses in 5400 Excelsior Boulevard are a movie theater, restaurants and retail. Nearby buildings at Park Village contain additional restaurants. This application proposes conversion of the first floor of the building to medical office now, and the application requests that future renovations to the second story be allowed to be approved administratively. The other current uses will be removed from the building or relocated to other buildings near the site. Specific uses on the site are governed by the proposed PUD zoning ordinance, and include the proposed medical offices. A draft of the ordinance is attached to this report. Comprehensive Plan: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site as COM - Commercial. Commercial land use is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of commercial uses, such as retail, service, entertainment, and office. Medical office use is permissible and encouraged as part of this land use category. Staff finds that this site is suitable for the proposed development and meets many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan including the following: 1. Preserve and enhance community commercial centers that offer desirable and complementary commercial retail and services for the community’s residents, workers, and visitors. 2. Promote the inclusion of office employment uses within or adjacent to large commercial developments to strengthen the functionality and vitality of community commercial centers. 3. Continue to enhance the Park Commons area as St. Louis Park’s primary “town center”. 4. Encourage and support new development, redevelopment, and revitalization that contribute to the city’s desired mix of commercial, office, and industrial development types within the community. 5. Support the expansion of existing high-quality businesses that have an environmentally sound track record, provide desirable goods and services, and offer quality jobs. Meeting of April 18, 2018 Page 4 Subject: Park Village PUD Amendment ZONING ANALYSIS: Table 1 - Zoning Compliance Factor Required Proposed Met? Use General commercial development Medical office Yes Lot Area 2 acres minimum for PUD 4.03 acres Yes Height Established by PUD; follows C-2 zoning district height requirements No change to building height, which currently complies with C-2 height requirements Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.5, None with PUD .253 (no change) Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A .166 (no change) Yes Off-Street Parking 1st Floor – 197 Both Floors – 267 Existing – 234 Restripe parking lot – 284 Expand parking at 3900 building – 273 Yes Bicycle Parking 20 20 Yes Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Full screening proposed Yes Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Provided along all streets and building frontages (no change) Yes Vehicular Parking: The retail parking lot south of the Mann Theater building currently serves three buildings: the former Granite City restaurant building, the Mann Theater building, and the Boston Market/Caribou Coffee building. This lot currently contains 234 parking spaces. The McDonald’s site parking lot provides its required parking and does not rely on shared parking. The current movie theater use requires large amounts of parking, and relies on the mix of uses on the site and shared parking with the Park Nicollet Clinic Campus in order to meet parking requirements. The site is also allowed a 10% reduction in parking minimums due its proximity to high-frequency transit stops on Excelsior Boulevard. The existing uses require a total of 604 parking spaces, which are provided in the retail lot south of the Mann Theater and through a private shared parking agreement with the surface parking lot to the north. The closure of the Mann Theater and change in the first floor to medical office reduces the required parking to 197 spaces, a reduction of 407 spaces. The current configuration of the retail lot meets the minimum parking requirement. Staff’s assumption that the second floor of the Mann Theater will eventually convert to medical office would increase the required parking by 70 spaces resulting in a total parking requirement of 267 spaces. This is 33 more spaces than what is currently provided in the retail lot. The applicant has provided proof of parking concepts, and either option would supply the parking needed. Option 1: Restriping the retail lot for diagonal parking will result in 50 additional spaces, or 17 spaces more than the required minimum. Option 2: Park Nicollet could also construct more off-site parking south of the 3900 building, and north of the Mann Theater, that would add 39 spaces, or 6 spaces more than the required minimum. Bicycle Parking: The zoning ordinance requires 20 bicycle parking spaces on site. The applicant has provided all required spaces in locations to serve all three buildings on site. Meeting of April 18, 2018 Page 5 Subject: Park Village PUD Amendment Traffic: Both staff and a private consulting firm analyzed the trip generation of the proposed uses. This analysis concluded that daily and peak hour trips would reduce with the initial closure of the Mann Theater, and reuse of the first floor. With added medical office uses in the second floor of the Mann Theater building, daily trips would still be lower than with existing uses. Pear hour trips would increase slightly, but not significantly, with the redevelopment of the second floor. Staff have determined that no additional traffic study is warranted. Table 2 – Trip Generation Comparisons Scenario Daily trips AM peak hour trips PM peak hour trips Existing land uses 2,354 87 137 Proposed land uses – 1st floor only 1,584 68 114 Difference -770 -19 -23 Proposed land uses – both floors 2,126 111 168 Difference -228 +24 +31 Signage: The wall signs shown on the proposed building elevations meets sign area requirements. The zoning ordinance states that any sign located on the exterior wall of a multi-tenant space must occupy wall that contains the tenant that is advertised. The proposed “Park Nicollet | Specialty Center” signs are shown on the second story, which technically does not contain a tenant. Staff recommends approval of the sign location, with the condition that if in the future a tenant were to move into that space that was not Park Nicollet, the signs must be relocated down to the first story of the façade where Park Nicollet has its lease. The site directional signage shown in the application does not currently meet the sign standards in the zoning code. The applicant intends to resubmit a site signage plan that meets all city requirements. Sign permits will not be issued until the site sign plan is revised. Public Input: A neighborhood meeting was held on April 3, 2018 to discuss the proposed changes to the uses and ground floor of the building. No residents attended the meeting, and city staff have received no comments or concerns regarding this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends rescinding Resolution No. 11-32, and approval of the PUD ordinance to allow renovation of the Mann Theater building, subject to the conditions below. 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2. A sign plan that conforms to all requirements in the zoning ordinance shall be submitted and approved by staff before issuance of sign permits. 3. If in the future a tenant, other than Park Nicollet, leases the upper floor of the building, the Park Nicollet walls signs shown on the second story of the exterior facades shall be relocated to the first story of the façade where Park Nicollet has its lease. ATTACHMENTS: PUD Draft Ordinance Development Plans Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor D R A F T ORDINANCE NO. ____ ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD ____ AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 5400 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 18-09-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Commercial. Sec. 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from COM - Commercial to PUD ____: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Tower Place, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD ____. (a) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. Survey 2. A100 Main Level Plan 3. A101 Upper Level Plan 4. A300 Exterior Elevations 5. A301 Exterior Elevations 6. A302 Exterior Renderings 7. D2.1 Site/Drive Through Layout Plan 8. Official exhibits from Resolution No. 94-180 (b) Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted uses: (1) Medical and dental office (2) Funeral homes (3) Libraries (4) Museums (5) Office (6) Parks and open spaces (7) Police and fire stations (8) Banks (9) Business/trade school/college (10) Retail shops up to 20,000 square feet (11) Service (12) Studios (13) Public service structures (14) Food service (15) Medical, optical and dental laboratories. The use shall not generate any fumes or odors which are detectable at the property lines of the parcel on which the use is located. (16) Private entertainment (indoor) with or without intoxicating liquor. If there is liquor then there shall be no separate bar area within the establishment. (17) Restaurants with or without intoxicating liquor. (18) More than one principal building located on a single lot. (c) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Parking lots. (2) Parking ramps (3) Public transit stops/shelters. (4) Outdoor seating with the following conditions: a. Public address (PA) systems are prohibited. b. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. (5) Outdoor storage is prohibited. (6) Catering if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store or retail bakery. (7) In -vehicle sales or service. The conditions are as follows: a. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall comply with all yard requirements. b. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service on adjacent streets and intersections. c. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. d. Any canopy constructed as part of this use shall be compatible with the architectural design and materials of the principal structure. (d) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this PUD shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking and screening requirements. (2) All solid waste materials containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All solid waste handling and loading areas shall be screened from view. The screening shall be constructed from the same materials as the principal building. (3) Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the requirements found in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district. Sec. 5. The contents of Planning Case File 18-09-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 6. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing April 18, 2018 First Reading May 7, 2018 Second Reading May 21, 2018 Date of Publication May 31, 2018 Date Ordinance takes effect June 15, 2018 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 21 , 2018 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney EXTERIOR RENDERINGSA302DRAFTORIG. ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:© 292 design group (2018)18106.00PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERV.MANN THEATER: RENOVATION5400 EXCELSIOR BOULVEVARDSAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 5541603/13/183533 LAKE STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406 612 767 3773Date:Reg. No: I hereby certify this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota 00.00.2018 44897 Thomas J. Betti SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY Sheet released for reference only in Bid Package #1 - Structural Steel. All drawing on this sheet are subject to change.PUDSUBMISSION EXTERIOR RENDERINGSA302DRAFTORIG. ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:© 292 design group (2018)18106.00PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERV.MANN THEATER: RENOVATION5400 EXCELSIOR BOULVEVARDSAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 5541603/13/183533 LAKE STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406 612 767 3773Date:Reg. No: I hereby certify this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota 00.00.2018 44897 Thomas J. Betti SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY Sheet released for reference only in Bid Package #1 - Structural Steel. All drawing on this sheet are subject to change.PUDSUBMISSIONEXISTING AND PROPOSED BIKERACK PLANA303 Existing Bike Rack (5 bikes) Proposed Bike Rack (5 bikes) Proposed Bike Racks (2 @ 5 bikes each) AERIAL SITE PLAN1 T1 S1 P N T RPNTRPNTRTRRE LOBBY UTILITIES UTILITIES TRASH MECH. VEST. ELEC. EXAM 15 EXAM 16 T1 S1 TOILET EXAM 13 EXAM 14 SURG. SCHED. LACTAT. EXAM 2 HYBRID TREAT. A PHOTO ROOM NEW STAIR TO UPPER LEVEL EXAM 1 HYBRID TREAT. B SUPPLY EXAM 3 HYBRID TREAT. C EXAM 4 HYBRID TREAT. D T1S1T1S1TOILET TOILET TREAT. E AESTHET. S1 TRMNT 6 TRMNT 5 TOILET TRMNT 7 TRMNT 8 TOILET SURG. SCHED. FRONTLINE T1 S1 TOILET CLINITEK SURG. SCHED. EXAM 1 T1S1TOILET EXAM 2 INSTR. REPROCESS NURSE MD NURSE MD SUB-WAIT S1 TOILET I.T. MAIL/ PRNT MGR./SUPER. MEDS MFDSEATING SEATING VEST. VEST. FRONTLINE RETAIL EQUIP. EQUIP.MFDTOILET T1S1T1 S1 T1 S1 TOILET TOILET TOILET EXAM 3 EXAM 4 EXAM 5 EXAM 6 TRMNT 1 TRMNT 2 TRMNT 3 TRMNT 4 EXAM 7 EXAM 8 EXAM 9 EXAM 10 EXAM 12 T1 S1 TOILET 62sf 172sf 307sf 80sf 283sf RENEW JAN. EQUIP. NEW WINDOWS EXAM 11T1T1110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 115sf 139sf 139sf139sf 139sf 139sf 158sf 175sf 110sf110sf 132sf 132sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 110sf 132sf 132sf 155sf 155sf 115sf 110sfT1S1TOILET 1 2 3 4 A D G H G F 1098765 A I E B C TPND 1 2 3 4 109765.13.1 B.7PNTR SUPPLY NURSE 201sf ELEV. MECH 136sf ELEV. 126sf UP +139.4" +209.1" H MEDS PNTR NURSE T1 NEW WINDOWS 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 7.1 8.1 8.3 8.4 6.4 NURSE MD G.5 E.6 8.7 LOCKER TRANSOM GLASS REF.REF.S4S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S2 S3 S3 S2 S2 S2 S2 S3 S2 S236LAT S2 S2 S2 S3S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 MD BREAK S1 S2 S2S2 S2 S2 S3 S3PANEL PANEL SUMP SUMP RWL 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 6.13.2 139sf CR KPAiCRAiCR KPCRCRDBDBDBDBDBC C 1/8" = 1'-0" MAIN LEVEL REMODEL PLAN1 A100 NEW SOLID/PERF. METAL PANEL AWNINGS ABOVE EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS, ATTACHED TO FRAME, ATTACHED TO WALL NEW PERF. METAL CLAD CANOPY ASSEMBLY, SEE STRUCT. FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS MODIFY EXISTING CANOPY STRUCTURE FOR NEW PERF. METAL PANEL CLAD CANOPY ASSEMBLY INFILL DOOR OPENING INFILL DOOR OPENING WITH CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH ADJACENT INFILL DOOR OPENING WITH CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH ADJACENT INFILL DOOR OPENING NEW VESTIBULE CONSTRUCTION, SEE STRUCT. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORAMTION INFILL DOOR OPENING INFILL DOOR OPENING EXISTING TRANSFORMERS DRAFTORIG. ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:© 292 design group (2018)18106.00PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERV.MANN THEATER: RENOVATION5400 EXCELSIOR BOULVEVARDSAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 5541603/13/183533 LAKE STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406 612 767 3773Date:Reg. No: I hereby certify this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota 00.00.2018 44897 Thomas J. Betti MAIN LEVEL PLANA100 SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY Sheet released for reference only in Bid Package #1 - Structural Steel. All drawing on this sheet are subject to change.PUDSUBMISSION 1 2 3 4 A D G H G F 1098765 A I E B C 1 2 3 4 109765.13.1 ELEV. MECH ELEV. DN +258" +209.1" DN B.7 6.4 ROOF ACCESS ABOVE STAIR 1 8 2 ' - 9 1 / 4 " L O N G E S T D I A G O N A L 145'-10 3/8" EGR E S S S E P E R AT EI O N (>13 DIA G O N AL) HVAC SHAFT G.5 E.6 8.71.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 7.1 8.1 8.3 8.4 6.4 G.5 E.6 8.7 +121'-6" +117'-0" +121'-6" +119'-0" +119'-0" 9'-0" CLEAR 15'-1" CLEAR 9'-4" CLEAR9'-10" CLEARFUTURE ELEV. MECH. ROOM 5'-2"DCD C 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL REMODEL PLAN1 A101 INFILL FLOOR OPENING TO MATCH EXISTING INFILL FLOOR OPENING TO MATCH EXISTING FLOOR HEIGHT INFILL FLOOR OPENING TO MATCH EXISTING NOTE: FUTURE INFILL ABOVE EXISTING SLOPED CONCRETE FLOOR TO MATCH 121'-6" FLOOR HEIGHT. DEPTH OF INFILL VARIES - FIELD VERIFY. INFILL TO CONSIST OF FOAM BLOCKING WITH 2" CONCRETE TOPPING FUTURE 2ND FLOOR HVAC UNIT ABOVE NEW 1ST FLOOR HVAC UNIT ABOVE MODIFY EXISTING RWL AS REQUIRED BY NEW LAYOUT EXISTING HVAC UNIT TO REMAIN FOR TEMP HEAT EXISTING HVAC UNIT TO REMAIN FOR TEMP HEAT EXISTING HVAC UNIT TO REMAIN FOR TEMP HEAT EXISTING HVAC UNIT TO REMAIN FOR TEMP HEAT DRAFTORIG. ISSUE DATE:REVISIONS:© 292 design group (2018)18106.00PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERV.MANN THEATER: RENOVATION5400 EXCELSIOR BOULVEVARDSAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 5541603/13/183533 LAKE STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406 612 767 3773Date: Reg. No: I hereby certify this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota 00.00.2018 44897 Thomas J. Betti UPPER LEVEL PLANA101 SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY Sheet released for reference only in Bid Package #1 - Structural Steel. All drawing on this sheet are subject to change.PUDSUBMISSION Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 Study Session Item 1 1. Comprehensive Plan – Water Resources Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the water resources sections of the in the St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. SUMMARY: There will be brief presentations regarding the surface water management, water supply, and sanitary sewer plans. The city’s consultant, Nancy Zeigler of AE2S, will present information and respond to questions regarding the Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer sections of the Comprehensive Plan. A draft of the 2040 Water Supply section is attached for your review. Updates to the Sanitary Sewer plan are underway and a draft is not yet available, so please review the attached copy of the 2030 Sanitary Sewer section for background information. Senior Engineering Project Manager Phillip Elkin will present an overview of the Surface Water Management Plan. Please note that both the Water Supply and Surface Water sections of the Comprehensive Plan are high-level summaries of more detailed Water Supply and Surface Water Management Plans that are being prepared for review by State of Minnesota agencies. Those complete plans will be appendices to the Comprehensive Plan and do not require Planning Commission review and recommendations. NEXT STEPS: Please see the attached schedule for additional upcoming Comprehensive Plan discussion items. Attachments: Draft 2040 Water Supply section 2030 Sanitary Sewer section Draft 2040 Surface Water Management section Tentative Schedule – Planning Commission review of 2040 Comprehensive Plan Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 1 Water Utility Vision for the Water Utility Ensure a Safe & Sufficient Water Supply for Future Generations The St. Louis Park Water Utilities mission is to provide an uninterrupted supply of safe, high quality water to its customers. Water treatment operators pump, treat and deliver water to homes and businesses. In addition, Water Utilities staff also educate children and adults about drinking water and the system delivering it. The City routinely updates its water supply plan, water rates and capital improvement plan to ensure that the plan is current and effective to meet the City’s needs into the future. The purpose of the water supply plan is to ensure a safe and sufficient water supply now and in the future. The plans serve as guides for construction, operation and maintenance of the municipal water system. Metropolitan Council requires that the City submit a Water Supply Plan as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan update. In addition, all public water suppliers in Minnesota that operate a public water distribution system, serving more than 1,000 people and/or all cities in the seven-county metropolitan area, must have a water supply plan approved by the DNR. To obtain more detail about St. Louis Park’s existing and future water supply, see 2018 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Supply, which is included as an Appendix to this Comprehensive Plan. Where We Have Been Historical Water Use St. Louis Park completed a DNR Water Emergency and Conservation Plan in October 2008 which was reviewed in conjunction with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Water use from 2007 to 2017 is described in Figure X. More detailed information is provided in the current and previous DNR Water Supply Plans. St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 2 Trends noted over the past 10 years include: The population served has risen and fallen over the past 10 years ranging from 45,216 to 47,502. Some of the reduction in total per capita demand, average day demand and peak demand is related to loss of some commercial/industrial customers. However, most of the downward trends are likely due to the City’s commitment and focus on water conservation efforts. Growth has not occurred as rapidly as projected in previous plans. Previous plans projected the 2017 population served to be 48,610 people and the reported 2017 population served was approximately 47,221 people. However, future growth and increased population and resulting water demand is anticipated, as addressed in a following section. Some key water demand factors to note include: Average Daily Demand: The average daily demand (total annual demand divided by 365) has begun to exhibit a downward trend over the last decade. The past 5-year average is 5.3 MGD, which is a decrease from the 5-year average of 6.5 MGD reported in the 2008 DNR Water Supply Plan. Maximum Daily Demand: Maximum daily demand over the past decade has also been exhibiting a downward trend. Maximum daily demand often occurs between June to September because of the increased water use on landscape watering, vehicle washing, and other outdoor activities. It is greatly influenced by weather patterns and drought conditions. The average maximum day was 11.6 MGD in the 2008 plan and is currently 9.3 MGD. Peaking Factor: The water demand peaking factor is the ratio of the average maximum day to the average day. The DNR has set a goal of reducing the average 10-year peaking factor to less than 2.6. St. Louis Park achieved this goal with a 10-year average peaking factor of 1.76 for 2008-2017. This was improvement over the previous peaking factor from 1998– 2007, which was 1.79. 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Water Demand (MGD)Year Average Day Demand (MGD)Maximum Day Demand (MGD)Water Conservation Program Implemented St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 3 Residential Per Capita Water – The DNR has set a goal of reducing the residential per capita water demand to most recent 5-year average residential per capita water demand to less than 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The City’s recent 5-year average exceeds this goal and is 60 gpcd, which was an improvement over the previous 5-year average of 78 gpcd reported in the 2008 plan. Total Per Capita Water Demand: Total per capita water demand for St Louis Park has begun to exhibit a downward trend since the adoption of the City’s 2008 Water Conservation Plan. Over the last decade, the average total per capita water demand is 113 gpcd, which is a decline from the average of 145 gpcd reported in the 2008 plan. Some of the reduction in total per capita demand, average day demand and peak demand is related to loss of some commercial/industrial customers. However, most of the downward trends are likely due to the City’s commitment and focus on water conservation efforts. Unaccounted (Non-revenue) Loss – Unaccounted for water use is the volume of water withdrawn from all sourced minus the volume of water delivered. The value represents water “lost” by miscalculated water use due to inaccurate meters, water lost through leaks or water that is used but unmetered or otherwise undocumented. The DNR has set a goal of reducing unaccounted for water to less than 10%. St. Louis Park’s recent 5-year average unaccounted-for water was 15%. This was an improvement over the previous 5-year average of 16% reported in the 2008 plan. The unaccounted-for water has been greatly reduced the past two years due to meter replacements and is at 7%. Aquifer Management From 1917 to 1972, a company in St. Louis Park operated a wood preserving plant known as the Republic Creosote Company to produce the wood preservative creosote. Spills and wastewater discharge contaminated the soil and groundwater around the site with polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Low levels of PAHs did get into some of the St. Louis Park wells. Six wells were closed and the area was eventually declared an EPA Superfund site. Municipal wells (SLP-4, SLP-10, and SLP-15) have since been reopened with granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration units that effectively remove PAHs from the water. Due to the aquifer contamination, the City has implemented a remedial action program which includes aquifer management measures. The program requires the continuous pumping of municipal wells SLP-4 and SLP-10 or SLP-15. The continuous pumping effectively controls the spread of contamination in the aquifer. The program of continuous pumping with GAC treatment has managed to control the spread of contamination and allowed the City to use the wells to produce high quality water to meet the demands of residents. Where We Are Today Water Facilities The St. Louis Park water system consists of 10 wells, six treatment plants, four reservoirs, three elevated water towers, and distribution components including pipes, valves, and hydrants. Water Supply The City of St. Louis Park derives its supply of water from a series of 10 active wells that draw on the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan and Mount Simon-Hinckley aquifers. The wells are located St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 4 throughout the City. The total water production capacity of the City’s active and alternate wells is 9,700 gpm (13.968 MGD). The firm capacity of the system, which assumes the largest well out of service, is 8,500 gpm (12.240 MGD). To meet the needs of the system, firm capacity should equal or exceed the maximum day demand in accordance with AWWA (American Water Works Association) recommendations. The current firm well capacity exceeds the most recent 5 year average maximum day demand of 9.3 MGD. The table below provides a summary of well data. Well No. Aquifer Capacity (Gallons per Minute) Status of Operations Well 3 Platteville - St.Peter NA Abandoned Well 4 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1200 Active Well 5 Prairie du Chien - Jordan NA Inactive -Water Level Monitoring Well 6 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1200 Not operational Well 7 Prairie du Chien - Jordan NA Water Level Monitoring Well 8 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1200 Active Well 9 Prairie du Chien - Jordan N/A Future Availability Well 10 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1250 Active Well 11 Mt. Simon - Hinckley 1200 Active Well 12 Mt. Simon - Hinckley 1150 Active Well 13 Mt. Simon - Hinckley 1200 Active Well 14 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1200 Active Well 15 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1250 Alternate Well 16 Prairie du Chien - Jordan 1150 Active Well 17 Mt. Simon - Hinckley NA Abandoned Total Capacity of Active & Alternate Wells – 9700 gpm/ 13.968 MGD* Firm Capacity (Largest well out of service) – 8500 gpm/ 12.240 MGD *When Wells 10 & 15 are both running their combined capacity is 1400 gpm Water Treatment The City has six treatment plants that are located near City wells. The City’s ground water contains many minerals that affect overall water quality, and its treatment plants are designed to remove the nuisance minerals iron and manganese through a filtration process. Some of the wells contain elevated levels of radium, and these wells require filtration and additional chemical injection to reduce the amount of radium to acceptable levels. Two wells also require additional treatment to remove organic contamination. Currently, the City is treating the contaminated ground water with granular activated carbon St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 5 (GAC), which lowers the levels of contaminants to trace levels that meet all state and federal requirements established in remedial action programs. In addition, chlorine is added to the water to prevent contamination from microorganisms; and to improve taste and odor. Minnesota statutes also require the addition of fluoride for the protection of children’s teeth. The city was advised in early 2016 of exceedances of health risk levels, set by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and at much lower limits than those of the EPA, for some types of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at Water Treatment Plant No. 4. Before receiving the advisory, the city was already working with MDH to develop a short-term solution to lower VOC levels at Water Treatment Plant No. 4. This short-term solution has shown positive results for lowering certain VOC levels, including vinyl chloride, at Water Treatment Plant No. 4. Recent testing revealed an increase in other VOCs such as trichloroethene (TCE), which prompted the City to install an air stripping process at Water Treatment Plant No. 4. Operators check the treatment system every day for proper operation of the filtration and chemical systems to ensure that water quality standards are met. The operation of the water treatment process is controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC) that transmits operational data to a system control and data acquisition system (SCADA) which allows the treatment plants to be remotely operated and monitored. Water treatment plant capacity is 9700 gpm (13.968 MGD) and exceeds the most recent 5 year average maximum day demand of 9.3 MGD. Maximum WTP Capacity Maximum Day Demand (Avg. last 5 years) 9700 gpm/ 13.968 MGD 9.3 MGD Water Storage The City’s water storage capacity is 9.5 million gallons. The system consists of three, 1-million gallon elevated water tanks, two underground concrete reservoirs with a capacity of 3.5 million gallons, and two ground level steel reservoirs with a capacity of three million gallons. It is recommended that total storage equal or exceed the average daily demand of 5.3 MGD. The total capacity of 9.5 million gallons provides the city with sufficient capacity in the event one or more storage facilities needs to be taken out of service without compromising the City’s ability to meet demand. The ground and underground reservoirs are located at the water treatment plants (WTP) with high capacity pumps that put water into the system. The elevated tanks are strategically located in the City to maintain equal pressure throughout the water system. Total Storage i Average Day Demand (Of last 5 years) 9,500,000 Gallons 5,300,000 Gallons per day St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 6 Structure Name Type of Storage Structure Storage Capacity (Gallons) Tower 2 Elevated storage 1,000,000 Tower 3 Elevated storage 1,000,000 Tower 4 Elevated storage 1,000,000 WTP No. 1 Ground storage 1,500,000 WTP No. 6 Ground storage 1,500,000 WTP No. 16 Underground 1,500,000 WTP No. 10 Underground 2,000,000 Total 9,500,000 Water Distribution System The water distribution system consists of watermain ranging in size from 6 inch to 12 inch in diameter and located throughout the city. The water distribution system is divided into two pressure zones. A small area in the northwest corner of the City, referred to as Shelard Park, has a pressure system supplied by WTP-8 or WTP-16. The remainder of the City is operated as one zone using the elevated tanks to maintain even pressure. The strategic location of the elevated tanks and WTPs provides the City with a very consistent pressure. The system is designed with 12-inch and 10-inch trunk lines and six-inch branch lines that deliver water to most of the City’s residential areas. A hydraulic model of the distribution system, was initially completed in 2000 and updated in 2013. It is used as a dynamic tool for development and redevelopment planning and used to support policymakers with multi-million dollar decisions to address infrastructure needs. The hydraulic model will be continuously updated and evolve in response to the changes made within the distribution system as well as in response to changes with water system demands. Alternate Water Sources Six Interconnections with adjacent distribution systems have been established and can be used for emergency and auxiliary water supply. All six emergency interconnections are subject to water availability. They are utilized only with prior authorization and coordination with the requesting city. The City of St. Louis Park currently has interconnections with the cities of Minnetonka, Plymouth, Golden Valley, Hopkins, and Edina. Other Water Supply System Owner Connection Size (Inches) Plymouth 8” Plymouth main connected to a 12” SLP main (Betty Crocker Drive) Minnetonka 6” Minnetonka main to 6” SLP main (Ford Road) Golden Valley 6” 1300 FLAG Golden Valley 6” Douglas and Ottawa Hopkins 8” Excelsior & Powell Edina 8” Wooddale & 44th St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 7 Water Conservation The City implemented a Water Conservation Plan in 2008 through the DNR Water Emergency and Conservation Plan. The plan addressed both conservation on the supply side (leak detection and repairs, metering), as well as on the demand side (reductions in usage). In the past 10 years the City has revised its water rates structure to provide conservation pricing, conducted on-going water supply system improvements, such as meter improvements and leak detection, and participated in educational efforts. Results of conservation efforts are measured based on the water demand, water losses, and peak demand trends. The residential per capita per day values, peaking factor and unaccounted-for water values have each shown a downward trend since conservation efforts were implemented in 2008. The residential per capita demand has been reduced from an average of 78.5 gpcd in 2008 to 60 gpcd currently. The peaking factor has been reduced from an average of 1.79 in 2008 to 1.76 currently. Unaccounted water has been reduced from an average of 16.1% in 2008 to 15% currently, and 7% in the last 2 years. Where We Are Headed Water Demand Projections The projected annual water demand through 2040 is summarized in Table X. The Metropolitan Council provided the projected populations for the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. The population projections for all other years were extrapolated. The Metropolitan Council “Thrive MSP 2040 – Forecasts as of January 1, 2017” projects a population increase from 45,250 in 2010 to 48,200 in 2020. Additionally, the population is projected to increase to 49,100 in 2030 and 51,300 in 2040. Growth is anticipated to occur at a steady rate per year between MCES future projections. The population served by the City’s water system is reported annually with every DNR Water Use Report. For projection of 2018 through 2019, the increase between the reported population served and the projected 2020 population was averaged and incrementally added annually. A similar method was used to project populations from 2020-2030 and 2030-2040. The Metropolitan Council “Thrive MSP 2040 forecasts indicate that the anticipated total population and population served are equal. As discussed previously, over the last decade, the total per capita water demand has trended downwards. The projected total per capita demand is based on the average total per capita demand over the last ten years and is equal to 123 gpcd. The most recent 5-year average total demand is 113 gpcd. The City considered reducing the total per capita demand estimate in the projections due to this lower 5-year average, but felt it may not be sustainable depending on water usage of future commercial and industrial establishments. The projected average day demand is equal to the total per capita per day times the projected population. This is then divided by one million to get the average day demand in MGD. The maximum day demand is based on the average annual peaking factor over the last ten years, which was found to be 1.76. For each year the average day demand is multiplied by the peaking factor to obtain the maximum day demand in MGD. St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 8 Table x. Projected Annual Water Demand Year Projected Total Population Projected Population Served Projected Total Per Capita Water Demand (GPCD) Projected Average Daily Demand (MGD) Projected Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) 2018 47,396 47,396 123.0 5.8 10.3 2019 47,570 47,570 123.0 5.9 10.3 2020 48,200 48,200 123.0 5.9 10.4 2021 48,290 48,290 123.0 5.9 10.5 2022 48,380 48,380 123.0 6.0 10.5 2023 48,470 48,470 123.0 6.0 10.5 2024 48,560 48,560 123.0 6.0 10.5 2025 48,650 48,650 123.0 6.0 10.5 2026 48,740 48,740 123.0 6.0 10.6 2027 48,830 48,830 123.0 6.0 10.6 2030 49,100 49,100 123.0 6.0 10.6 2040 51,300 51,300 123.0 6.3 11.1 GPCD – Gallons per Capita per Day MGD – Million Gallons per Day The 2030 Comprehensive Planning effort projected significantly higher water demands due to a great population projections and higher per capita water use projections. The 2008 projections, were based on demand of 145.3 gpcd and a peaking factor of 1.79. Water conservation and efficiency programs have been effective in reducing the key parameters used in calculating water projections. The comparison between previous planning effort projections and the current ones are summarized in Table X. Table X. 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plan Comparison Year Population Served Average Day Demand (MGD) Max Day Demand (MGD) Previous 2030 Projection 51,500 7.48 13.39 Current 2030 Projection 49,100 6.0 10.6 Previous Ultimate 51,500 7.48 13.39 Current 2040 Projection 51,300 6.3 11.1 St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 9 Future Water System Needs The City’s future water utility will need to meet future growth and the resulting increase in water demand. Current well, water treatment plant and storage capacities are compared to the future demand projections in the flowing tables. The current firm capacity of the wells is 12.240 MGD, and current capacity of the treatment plants is 13.968 MGD. Well and the water treatment capacity must be able to meet or exceed the maximum day demand, which is projected to range from 10.3 to 11.1 MGD between now and 2040. The current firm capacity of 12.240 exceed the needed capacity in 2040 by 10 % and the water treatment plant capacity of 13.968 will exceed the needed capacity by 21%. The total storage capacity of the existing storage structures equals 9.5 MG and. The projected average day water demand between now and 2040 ranges from 5.8 to 6.3 MGD. The current storage volume exceeds the future average day demand in 2040 by 34%. In summary, the capacity of current wells, water treatment plants, and storage facilities meet the future demands based on the 2040 population projections. Wells Current Capacity (MGD) 2040 Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Remaining Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity 12.240 11.1 1.14 Water Treatment Current Capacity (MGD) 2040 Maximum Day Demand (MGD) Remaining Capacity (MGD) WTP Capacity 13.968 11.1 2.868 Water Storage Facilities Current Capacity (MGD) 2040 Average Day Demand (MGD) Remaining Capacity (MGD) Total Storage 9.5 6.3 3.2 Goals and Strategies Water Conservation Plan An update Water Conservation Plan is included in the 2018 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Supply. (See Appendix to this Comprehensive Plan) The city plans to continue the water conservation techniques employed over the last 10 years and annually evaluate and expand them as appropriate. The City employs conservation billing strategies for water and rates are evaluated annually. The City plans to participate in outreach efforts such as consumer confidence reports, billing inserts, social media distribution, presentation to community groups and schools, facility tours, and community events such as the Fall Open House and Eco Fair. In addition, the City plans on-going staff training on conservation techniques. St. Louis Park 2040 | Water Utility Chapter Draft: April 13, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Water Utility 10 Capital Improvement Plan & Preventative Maintenance The City is committed to capital reinvestment of the Water Utility to achieve the goals and policies set forth and maintain the long-term sustainability of the Utility. A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is in place to cover expansion (if needed) and repair of the water system and is updated annually. As discussed in this plan, the capacity of current wells, water treatment plant, and storage facilities meet the future demands based on the 2040 population projections and land use map. If significant changes were to occur, such as the addition of a large water user, the water plan and resulting CIP would be updated. The current water treatment plants are meeting government regulations related to water quality. Although not anticipated, if a currently unregulated water constituent becomes regulated or existing regulations become more stringent, the future planning efforts and CIPs would also need to be adjusted. Preventative maintenance is extremely important in the life of a water supply and distribution system. Preventative maintenance is scheduled as follows: • Production wells pulled every 7 years. • Water treatment plant GAC replacement and rehabilitation as needed. • Leak detection monitoring occurs for the entire water system each year. • Valve operation program - scheduled as time permits. • Hydrant flushing and inspection program - semi- annual program spring and fall • Storage facility maintenance: warranty inspection at 2 years, touch up repairs at 10 to 12 years, total reconditioning at 20 to 25 years. • Valve, meter, equipment, etc. upgrades and replacements are budgeted and scheduled as necessary. Environmental Stewardship 25 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E1 ComprehensivePlan Vision For Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer management is an important aspect of our urban environment. Citizens in today’s cities generate significant amounts of waste. In the Twin Cities metro area alone approximately 300 million gallons of wastewater is treated daily. The proper disposal and management of these wastes is critical for the maintenance of public health, the protection and preservation of our water resources and the area’s future growth. Where We Have Been In St. Louis Park, sanitary sewer management encompasses both local and regional systems which together transport, treat and dispose of waste water. The local sewer system, owned and managed by the City, includes pipes and lift stations which collect and transport liquid wastes to the regional system as well as treatment facilities. Regional System The largest sewer lines serving the City are called metropolitan interceptors and are operated and maintained by the Metropolitan Council-Environmental Services (MCES). The regional system is referred to as the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). The City’s system collects liquid waste from homes and businesses and delivers it to the MDS system interceptors. Treatment of the waste occurs at the treatment plant in St. Paul, and the City is assessed for its share of the treatment costs based on sewage flows. Since it is difficult and costly to increase system capacity, the present sanitary waste control system must be properly and effectively managed to operate efficiently. Careful projections of future demands on the system based on growth and changes in land use are essential for planning increases in system capacity. MDS Interceptors Interceptor % of City’s Total Flow Available Capacity mgy 2008 Level mgy=million gallons per year SLP-420 34% 1,277.5 630.2 7026 22% 730 356.6 GV-461 44% 1058.5 930.1 Whenever someone takes a shower, flushes a toilet, runs a washing machine, or does the dishes, the resulting wastewater is carried through the drain to a sanitary sewer pipe. That pipe, in turn, is connected to the regional sewer interceptor and finally to the waste treatment plant. (Met Council Website) Environmental Stewardship 26 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E2 ComprehensivePlan City Sanitary Sewer System The sanitary sewer system provides sanitary waste collection for every home and business within the City. The system consists of sewer connections, sewer main lines, lift stations, and manholes. Pipe sizes range from as small as 9 inches (which comprise of 75% of the system) to as large as 33 inches. Interceptor Region GV 461 SLP 420 SLP 7026 Lakes & Creeks Streets 0 0.5 Miles SLP 420 SLP 7026 SLP 7026 GV 461 St. Louis Park MCES Interceptor Regions Environmental Stewardship 27 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E3 ComprehensivePlan St. Louis Park uses a conventional system in which gravity serves as the driving force to move the wastewater through a network of downward sloping pipes. The sanitary sewer system follows the normal contour of the land. Some areas do not provide the elevation required for a gravity system to work, so lift stations collect and pump the wastewater to a higher level where the gravity system can work. Lift Station MCES Meters Force Mains MCES Interceptors Sanitary Trunk Lines Sanitary Main Lines Lakes & Creeks GV 461 SLP 420 SLP 7026 0 0.5 Miles GV - 461 SLP 7026 SLP 7026 SLP 420M122 M121 M124 M123 M120 City-wide Sanitary Sewer Network Environmental Stewardship 28 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E4 ComprehensivePlan St. Louis Park’s sanitary sewer system transports over 2 billion gallons of wastewater annually to three MDS interceptors. The MDS interceptors transport the sewage to the treatment facility in St. Paul where it is treated and discharged into the Mississippi River. The total capacity available to the City of St. Louis Park is 8.4 million gallons per day (mgd). Where We Are Today As is true in other communities, St. Louis Park’s sanitary sewer system is aging. It requires some repair and replacement to meet acceptable standards. A majority of the sanitary sewer system was installed in the 1950s and 1960s as the City experienced rapid growth. The design life of most sanitary sewers is about 100 years. Due to soil conditions, structural defects, wear and tear, overloading, corrosion and deterioration, most systems do not last that long. The St. Louis Park system is no exception. Like other City infrastructure (such as streets and buildings) the St. Louis Park system is starting to reach the age when it will require attention in order to maintain its structural integrity. In order to effectively manage its sewer system, the city has ongoing maintenance and inspection programs. The maintenance program consists of manhole repair, and cleaning the main sewer lines on a three-year schedule to maintain optimum operation. The inspection program consists of a video inspection of the sanitary sewer lines and manholes. A report is compiled during the inspection process which details the type of pipe, physical characteristics, root intrusion, inflow, infiltration, leaks and the structural integrity. Data from the report is recorded in a computerized management system which rates the infrastructure on all of the inspected conditions. Work orders are then generated by the software program for the Utilities Division repair and maintenance crews. Sewer Connections 13,588 Life Stations 23 Sewer Main Lines 827,345 ft Manholes 3,026 St. Louis Park Sanitary Sewer System Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Source: MCES 10 year flow data. *Calculated from 1997 total of 2476.00 Metered Flow 2,411 2,381 2,240 2,271 2,271 2,211 2,123 2,047 2,064 2,001 % Decrease -3 -1 -6 1 0 -2 -4 -4 0.8 -3 -17 Annual Sewage Volume, 1998-2007 (in millions of gallons) Residential Multi-Family Institutional Commercial Industrial Total REC: Residential Equivalent Connection = 274 gallons per day (gpd) is the average usage per residential connection to the sewer Connection 11,603 1,197 111 606 71 13,588 REC 11,603 9,986 6,521 28,110 2007 Sewer Service Connections Environmental Stewardship 29 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E5 ComprehensivePlan Capital Improvement Program An inspection of the entire system was completed in 2002, and it revealed some defects in some sewer main lines.These included cracked pipes, separated joints, sags, pipe deterioration, inflow and infiltration (I/I). To repair and rehabilitate the recorded defects, the City implemented a capital improvement program (CIP) and allocates $250,000 per year for repairs from the sanitary sewer fund. This has allowed the City to repair and/or replace the sanitary sewer in a systematic manner using industry standards such as those relating to structural integrity, I/I, root intrusion specific to the type of pipe, and risk factors associated with pipe failure and its impact on other parts of the system. The improvement program is reviewed annually to include long term planning in conjunction with community development, other public works infrastructure improvements and current condition assessments. Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) The condition of sanitary sewer systems can greatly impact total sewage flow. There are approximately 140 miles of sanitary sewer mains throughout the City and the majority of the pipe is vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with a pipe joint every four feet. Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) are terms for the ways that clear water (rain and groundwater) makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes. Infiltration occurs when groundwater seeps into sewer pipes through cracks, leaky joints or deteriorated manholes. Inflow is a direct connection that allows rainwater to enter the sewer system through roof leaders, basement sump pumps, or foundation drains illegally connected to the system. Inflow and infiltration are of great concern as it results in the unnecessary treatment of water and consumes capacity in the large regional sewer pipes. This also results in sewer backups into homes and overflows into local lakes and rivers. In an effort to minimize I/I the city prohibits the connection of sump pumps, rain leaders and passive drain tile to the sanitary sewer system. St. Louis Park has been working diligently to isolate and identify specific sources of inflow and infiltration for many years. During the early 1980s the City conducted a sanitary sewer collection system study which was the most comprehensive investigation undertaken by the City on I/I. The results of the investigation led to a sewer rehabilitation program which included manhole lid replacement, manhole grouting, and an extensive closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection and sewer pipe lining program to reduce I/I in problem areas. MCES recently implemented a program to reduce inflow and infiltration in the Metropolitan area and established goals for all communities using the Metropolitan Disposal System. The 2005 I/I goal set for St. Louis Park is the allowable peak hourly flow rate as shown in Table 5. In 2007, a citywide I/I study was completed (Please see Appendix for study). The study indicated the City does not have a critical I/I problem based on the MCES surcharge program as shown in Table 5. Although the peak flow experienced by the City is 3.7 mgd below the allowable flow limit set by the MCES, the City did experience one flow event that exceeded the M126 allowable limit of 0.07 mgd, triggering the MCES surcharge program. St. Louis Park is taking corrective action to eliminate this I & I problem. Environmental Stewardship 30 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E6 ComprehensivePlan Sanitary flow within the City does show an increase directly related to rainfall. The I/I study reviewed all available infor- mation on the age, size, type, footage, materials of construction, and general physical condition of the City’s trunk and collec- tor sewer lines. The report established priority areas for future investigations, identified future investigation tasks, established base flow rates to determine the effectiveness of I/I removal efforts, and identified an I/I abatement plan for continued investigation and rehabilitation. The City is planning to continue to implement a program of investigation and monitoring as recommended in the study. The program has allocated an average of $85,000 per year from the sanitary sewer fund for improvements. The City prohibits the connection of sump pumps, rain leaders and passive drain tile to the sanitary sewer system. System Adequacy for Future Growth The sanitary sewer system capacity is determined by the size and slope of the pipe combined with the volume of sewage flow. The original design of the system in the 1950s and 1960s also calculated a growth factor. Although the original system and the growth factor considered anticipated growth, the City now faces the challenge of redevelopment. Often the redevelopment of properties has a large impact on the volume of waste generated. It is important to identify more specifically how growth and redevelopment is distributed among residential, industrial and commercial properties. An office tower, for instance, places very different demands on water and sewer services than retail, restaurants, or certain manufacturing establishments. MCES Meter Station M120 M121 M132 M126 Total Allowable Peak Hour Flow 2005 7.58 mgd 5.74 mgd 3.67 mgd 0.07 mgd 17.06 mgd SLP Flow 10/4/2005 6.17 mgd 4.50 mgd 2.59 mgd 0.02 mgd 13.28 mgd St. Louis Park Inflow Rates Year Flow Rates Source: Metropolitan Council 2010 14.23 2020 14.56 Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (mgd) 2030 14.74 Year 2007 2010 2020 2030 Source: Metropolitan Council Population 44,569 47,000 49,300 51,500 Households 21,403 22,000 23,000 24,000 Sewered Population, Household, and Employment Projections Employment 41,067 46,200 50,500 52,500 Interceptor GV461 SLP420 7026 Actual City Projection (mgy) MC Projection (mgy) City Projection (mgd) MC Projection (mgd) SLP Flows 120 121-122 132-123 2006 967.4 719.3 390.5 2,077.2 2007 943.9 677.6 376 1,916.9 Wastewater Flow Projections/Annual Sewage Volume by Interceptor (mgy) 2008 930.1 630.2 356.6 1,916.9 2010 917.3 829.3 474.0 2,220.6 2,362.0 6.1 6.5 2020 917.9 852.4 481.0 2,251.3 2,416.0 6.2 6.6 2030 920.6 857.2 481.0 2,258.8 2,446.0 6.2 6.7 Environmental Stewardship 31 ComprehensivePlan VII. Environmental Stewardship E. Sanitary Sewer VII-E7 ComprehensivePlan To estimate future sanitary sewer flow in St. Louis Park interceptors, the projected redevelopment was used to develop a forecast by area. Each property expected to redevelop by 2030 was evaluated to reflect the expected sewer system usage. This includes removal of uses as well as new uses with expected intensities. Land uses were translated into an expected usage per acre to determine flows. Although it is not possible to predict exactly the types of businesses or intensity of land uses which will be established in the City’s growth and redevelopment, it is possible to make reasonable estimates based upon the City’s land use policies, goals, and knowledge of current redevelopment prospects. On Site Disposal Systems St. Louis Park currently has two residential on-site sewage treatment systems and one serving a commercial use-the Minneapolis Golf Course. To ensure property maintenance of these systems the City Code requires permits and inspections for repair or installation of on-site systems. Notice requiring inspections and/or pumping is sent to each property every three years and requires the owners to provide documentation from an on-site contractor of work performed. The city’s MPCS certified septic inspector is in charge of this program. Goals Goals and Strategies Goal 1 Provide the community a municipal sanitary sewer collection system that will enable optimum transportation of sewage with minimum interruption. Strategy A Continue the three-year cleaning and maintenance program on the main sewer lines and bi-annual maintenance program on the sanitary sewer lift stations. Strategy B Continue to evaluate the basic maintenance and operational guidelines to provide responsive and cost effective maintenance of the Sanitary Sewer System. Goal 2 Provide current information on the Sanitary Sewer System infrastructure through video inspection. Strategy A Continue to evaluate the main lines for structural integrity, inflow and infiltration, using the process to establish a proactive CIP to correct any deficiencies through the most effective methods Strategy B Incorporate the inspection process with the development of a more efficient maintenance program. Goal 3 Provide a model of operating flow data of the sanitary system. Strategy A Develop a comprehensive plan to meter flows throughout the system. Strategy B Work with Community Development to focus on redevelopment areas to identify capacity issues. Goal 4 Implement recommended actions related to the Inflow and Infiltration Study completed in 2007 to prevent future surcharges to the system. Strategy A Develop a program to systematically investigate areas of concern identified in the report. Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. The city views natural systems as a community asset that contributes to environmental and human health, connects neighborhoods, and provides recreation and economic value. Our goal is to position natural systems in balance with the built environment through development to be a vibrant, resilient regional land use and water resource management leader. The city’s surface waters include lakes, creeks, and wetlands. St. Louis Park is located within two watersheds – Minnehaha Creek and Bassett Creek. These two watersheds are under the jurisdiction of two Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs) – the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The City’s goal is to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. A critical component of St. Louis Park’s comprehensive planning and management is surface water management. St. Louis Park’s Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was first developed in 2001 and established a stormwater management plan for the city, integrating flood control with wetland and water quality needs. The SWMP was prepared in conformance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410. Where We Have Been Prior to incorporation as a city, St. Louis Park grew by filing and draining wetlands, creating ditch systems and using existing waterbodies for stormwater management. This type of development led to undersized stormwater infrastructure and degradation of natural resources. Upon completion of the first generation SWMP, the city began to identify capital projects to prevent flooding and improve water quality by utilizing maintenance projects which expanded the capacity of existing stormwater facilities. The current SWMP was updated in 2009 and provided a comprehensive planning guide for the City in preserving, protecting, and managing water resources within the community. The document established the goals and policies for surface water management, such as surface water quality, wetlands protection and restoration, surface water quantity, flood control, groundwater protection, erosion and sedimentation control, recreation, habitat and shoreland management, education and public involvement, and funding. The 2009 SWMP was written with an emphasis to meet the policies and requirements of watershed organizations and other local, state, and federal agencies. The projects identified in that plan focused on upgrading existing facilities to the water treatment standards of that time in an effort to meet water quality regulations and reduce flooding of private property and streets. Where We Are Going The city seeks to improve surface water quality and reduce stormwater volumes in the city. The challenges facing the city in the next 20 years are to develop a stormwater management plan in a fully developed community with an aging infrastructure, increased water quality standards and anticipated increased rainfall events as a result of changing climate. In order to address these goals and challenges the City must leverage partnerships to incorporate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) during planning and design of development and redevelopment projects. These BMPs aid in reducing runoff volumes and help to minimize the quantity and concentration of pollutants in stormwater runoff. The indirect benefit of using these BMPs is that they help to minimize the stress on the City’s aging infrastructure. The City also commissioned the development of a model which simulates hydrologic, hydraulics and water quality conditions throughout the city. The model provides the City with information about optimal locations to place BMPs for maximal effectiveness and it evaluates the overall effectiveness of proposed BMPs associated with development and redevelopment projects. During the development of its SWMP, the City partnered with its watershed management organizations, local businesses, and the public to identify mutual goals, opportunities and challenges related to surface water quality and stormwater management. Through this outreach the SWMP will incorporate a city-wide integrated and collaborative approach to maximize stormwater and natural system opportunities through land use changes. Goals and Strategies Capital Improvement Projects Seek opportunities to implement stormwater management BMPs with all public improvement projects. This goal goes beyond managing stormwater when required and takes advantage of physical land features such as low points and pervious soil conditions when advancing public infrastructure projects. Education Ensure that every person understands the stormwater and natural systems and where their water goes, and people act to positively influence those systems. Private Development and Re-development Projects Collaborate with private projects beyond expectations to further define and utilize our resources to better manage stormwater and our natural systems to revitalize and connect our community to be more resilient in the future Floodplain Management Delineate flooding by using revised storm data (Atlas 14) in stormwater modeling. This will allow the city to establish defined flood elevations and work with residents to assess flood risk. Erosion and Sediment Control Continue to manage programs which monitor construction projects to minimize the amount of sediment and contaminates from entering the city’s storm sewer system and surface waters. Localized Stormwater Management Encourage residents and businesses to get involved in the rainwater rewards program which helps fund individual stormwater management projects such as raingardens, water reuse projects and other projects promoting small scale stormwater management. Comprehensive Plan 2040 - Tentative Review Schedule Date Topics for discussion Feb 21 Land Use March 7 Housing March 21 Land Use and Mobility - City Council invited April 4 Climate and energy Parks and Recreation Solid Waste - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and Environment & Sustainability Commission invited April 16 City Council Study Session April 18 Surface Water Water Supply Sanitary Sewer May Additional Community Engagement May 2 Mobility Public Safety Health May 14 City Council Study Session May 15 Send to Commissions for Review May 16 Plan by N’hood and additional remaining sections May 30 Planning Commission Review June 6 Planning Commission recommendation to send out for review June 18 City Council action to send out for review