HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/08/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 2, 2004
7:00 p.m.
***7:00 p.m. – Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Junior Naturalist Appreciation
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of July 19, 2004
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items
from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items
remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing - Elmwood Village Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution establishing the Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District (a renewal and renovation district) within Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
- Close public hearing.
-Motion to adopt the resolution approving the elimination
of parcels from the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment
Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF
District No. 1302), within Redevelopment Project No. 1,
in the City of St. Louis Park).
-Motion to adopt the resolution modifying Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and establishing the Elmwood Village Tax
Increment Financing District and adopting a Tax Increment
Financing Plan therefor.
6b. Public Hearing - Aquila Commons Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution establishing the Aquila Commons Tax Increment
Financing District (a housing district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Close public hearing. Motion to adopt the resolution modifying
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila
Commons Tax Increment Financing District and adopting a Tax
Increment Financing Plan therefor subject to City Council
approval of the pending amendment to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan changing the land use designation of the subject property.
6c. Public hearing for petition of Rottlund Homes to vacate West 37th Street
between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford
Street and east of Alabama Avenue. Request of Rottlund Homes for a final
PUD and plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W
37th Street, 5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926
Oxford Street
to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units, and 80 senior condo
units and with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for private street
width and a PUD modification for building height.
Case Nos. 03-75-VAC, 03-73-PUD, 03-74-S,
Recommended
Action:
ü Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first
reading of ordinance to vacate West 37th Street between
Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north
of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue and set
second reading for August 16, 2004.
ü Motion to approve resolution for Final PUD with
conditions.
ü Motion to approve resolution for Final plat with
conditions.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an amendment
to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Civic
to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for their property
for a residential senior housing cooperative development
Case Nos. 04-23-CUP
8200 33rd Street West
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt resolution approving a Comprehensive
Plan map amendment changing land use designation for
property at 8200 33rd St W from Civic to High Density
Residential and text amendments to Chapter P of
Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 contingent upon
Metropolitan Council approval.
8b. Resolution approving contract with International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF) #993 – Firefighters for 1/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
Approval of 2-year agreement with Firefighters settling for 2004 & 2005.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and International Association of Firefighters
(IAFF) #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment
for two years: 1/1/04 – 12/31/05.
8c. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement Project –
Lift Station Replacement – Project No. 00-18A
This report considers the replacement of an existing storm sewer lift station located at
Pennsylvania Avenue and Franklin Avenue, near Lamplighter Pond.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18A,
approving plans and specifications, and authorizing
advertisement for bids.
8d. Proposed Amendments to Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294,
295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to
Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain
Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding
clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Case Nos. 04-35-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of the ordinance amending Section
36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298
and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning
to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the
Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain
Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and set second
reading for the August 16th City Council meeting.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administration Department) at 952/924-2525 (TDD
952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2004
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a Motion to designate Parsons Technologies the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $496,543.00 for construction of a
fiber optic network to connect certain City and School District buildings.
4b Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (Supplement)
4c Motion to accept for filing the BOZA minutes of May 27, 2004
4d Motion to accept for filing the Human Rights Commission Minutes of June 16, 2004
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 2, 2004
Items contained in this section are those items
which are not yet available in electronic format
and which are identified in the individual
reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 19, 2004
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick
Staff present: City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms.
Reichert), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community
Development (Mr. Locke), Engineer Development Manager (Mr. Olson), Public Works Director
(Mr. Rardin) and Superintendent of Utilities (Mr. Anderson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of June 21, 2004
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes of June 21, 2004
Councilmember Velick noted on Page 3, Communications regarding Elliot School, she
had asked if the School Board was planning to do anything with the building and the
response she got was that they were looking for other renters. However, her intent was
not what they were going to do to rent it out, but if they were going to paint and fix it up
a little.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
3c. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2004
Councilmember Sanger noted that she was present.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 2
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to
regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar).
4a. Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2275-04 amending St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code (Zoning) to eliminate stand alone motor fuel stations as a conditional use in
the General Industrial District, clarifying the temporary structure ordinance,
clarifying restaurant conditions in the Office District, and requiring tree protection
standards during construction activities; approve second reading, summary
ordinance and authorize publication. Case Nos. 04-22-ZA
4b. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-085 imposing a civil penalty of $1000 on
Boykin Management Co, Inc., DBA Holiday Inn Mpls West, 9970 Wayzata Blvd,
St. Louis Park, for liquor license violation as recommended by the City Manager.
4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate BCG Construction as the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$29,686.60 for Alley Improvement Project-7600 and 7700 Block Edgebrook
Drive, Project No. 03-15
4d. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in
the amount of $318,707.39 for West 36th Street Water Improvements– City
Project No. 04-14
4e. Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder
and to authorize execution of a contract for the reclaiming and repaving of the
George Haun trail in Bass Lake Park in an amount not to exceed $75,339.00.
4f. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an Encroachment
Agreement with Patrick Shea, 2646 Joppa Avenue South, for use of City right-of-
way for placement of a retaining wall.
4g. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-086 accepting work on 2003 random
sidewalk replacement in the amount of $47,863.40
4h. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-087 accepting work on 2003 sidewalk and
trail constriction in the amount of $19,229.27
4i. Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 2004
4j. Motion directing staff to pursue right-of-way acquisition associated with Trunk
Highway 100 Noise Wall Construction Project, Project No. 2005-01
4k. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-088 for the issuance of multifamily housing
revenue refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed $14,585,000 under MN
Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 3
4l. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-089 authorizing the installation of “No Parking”
restrictions on the north side of 26th Street for the 100 feet west of 25 ½ Street.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale
liquor license to CSM Lodging Services, Inc., DBA Holiday Inn Minneapolis
West at 9970 Wayzata Blvd, St. Louis Park MN
Ms. Reichert clarified that the report stated that a transfer of management operations
would occur, but there was technically no such thing as a transfer in liquor licenses. This
was an entirely new license, a new owner of the building, and a new management
company that would be taking over the license.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Dorindia Cianci, representing CSM Lodging, stated that they were a new company, and
had several companies across the United States and hotels in the City, and were very
much into the TIPS training and wanted to work very closely with the Police Department
regarding the liquor license.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Santa question if this was the third application for a liquor license in a
year.
Ms. Reichert responded for this location, this was the first sale of this establishment, this
year. Boykin Management purchased it and applied for a liquor license about a year ago.
Prior to that it was probably operated for two or three years under the same company.
Councilmember Santa thanked Ms. Reichert for the clarification.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve
an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sale liquor license effective Aug 2, 2004.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Public Hearing on Alley Improvement Project and Assessment Hearing:
Alley Construction – 4200 block of Ottawa Avenue, Project No. 04-16
Resolution No.’s 04-082 and 04-083
Mr. Anderson reported in October 2003 the City received a petition from five homes
located in the 4200 block of Ottawa Avenue. They requested that an alley be constructed
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 4
so they could build garages behind their homes. Those five homes currently have no
garages and the alley they would like to have constructed would run behind their homes
starting at 42nd Street heading South to 4233 on the East side of Ottawa Avenue. They
alley that was proposed to be constructed would be concrete and constructed on City
property because there was no existing right-of-way. The City owned all of the property to
the East of the homes and the alley would be constructed in a 14 foot wide right-of-way.
The alley to be constructed was 390 feet long and would be made of six inches of concrete.
The Council approved their petition and ordered staff to study the feasibility of the project.
Over winter staff prepared plans for this project and in the spring held a neighborhood
meeting to discuss the plans for the project and the assessment process with those
homeowners. Affected residents were invited to the meeting as well as the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff received comments from those in favor and opposed. A study session
was held for the Council to provide an overview of the project and answer questions.
Neighbors were invited to that as well. On June 21st at the Council Meeting, the Council
approved the City Engineers report and ordered the public hearing. This project is
estimated to cost $68,000 which would be assessed to the abutting properties. The
assessment would follow the City’s policy on alley assessment that states that 100% of the
costs would be assessed to the abutting property owners. The assessment is broken into
indirect and direct benefit. 30% of the assessment is for indirect and is assessed to all
abutting property owners. 70% is considered for direct benefit and would be assessed to
those properties that would receive access so they could construct garages. There are five
homes that would receive the direct benefit. It would be a 20-year assessment at 6.6%.
The owners had an option to pay early and pay before the November 15th deadline when
the assessment role was completed. Because half of the abutting property is a city
property, practice in previous construction projects was for the City to pay 50% of the
cost, thus $34,000 would come from the City’s public improvement revolving fund. The
other 50% will be assessed to the owners on the West side of the alley.
Mayor Jacobs noted that petitions had been received from Marilyn Lingwall, Todd and
Patricia Mickelson and Phyllis and John Deinema and would be made a part of the record.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
John Deinema, 4201 Ottawa, stated that he was opposed to the construction of the alley
because it wouldn’t do him any good and he thought it was a waste of tax payer money.
These people bought their homes knowing that they didn’t have a garage. It was possible
for them to make a curb cut and put a driveway between their houses and if there wasn’t
enough room, they could share a driveway, as many places do, and build a garage on
their own property without involving the City and people who had no need for the alley.
They already had garages and driveways. He noted there was an on-going expense over
the $34,000 to maintain and plow the alley and the City was taking that on. He thought it
was a waste of money and asked if the City Attorney had looked at this because they
were doing private work with public money?
Mr. Scott replied that this would be a public street and open to the public, even though it
was an alley versus a public street, it still fell into the category of a public street and there
was no problem with the City doing this type of improvement.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 5
Mr. Deinema asked if the City had a requirement for these people to build a garage.
Mayor J acobs replied he didn’t believe there was a requirement.
Mr. Harmening replied that there was no code requirement dictating that they had to
have a garage.
Mr. Deinema asked if they didn’t build an alley, could they drive their car on the grass in
back or was there a requirement to be cement, black top or gravel access to their property
from the alley.
Mr. Harmening replied that was correct. A driveway and parking area should be hard
surface and should be concrete or bituminous.
Mr. Deinema asked for clarification that there was no requirement for a garage.
Mr. Harmening replied that was correct.
Mr. Deinema wondered how that was going to increase his property value because a
garage was not required to be built. He understood that they were giving them off-street
parking, but there was no garage involved. He asked if there was a cost involved with
moving the telephone poles, or would the alley be constructed on the East of the
telephone poles in the back.
Mr. Olsen replied if the poles were located within the right-of-way and were not obstructing
the alley, they would probably stay in place. Otherwise, the poles could be moved.
Mr. Deinema asked if that was part of the $68,000.
Mr. Olsen responded that generally the poles are moved at the expense of the company
who owned the poles. There were contingencies built into the project to cover
unforeseen things such as that.
Mr. Deinema stated that he was inquiring about that because he wondered where the
alley would be and how close it would abut to his property.
Mr. Olsen replied that the right-of-way for a typical alley was fourteen feet wide. It would
be constructed across the City property but would abut directly to his property line. There
would be a two foot buffer from his property line to the edge of the concrete surface.
Mr. Deinema asked if the alley could be staked out so they knew where it would be? He
had rocks as a border in the back and wondered if he would have to move those.
Mr. Olsen responded that they would stake it and would work with owners on issues such
as moving rocks or plantings and things like that.
Mr. Deinema asked what provision the City would make to ensure that his driveway
would not be used by people going to use the alley. There would be 10-15 feet between
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 6
the alley entrance and the entrance to his driveway he could see someone taking a short
cut going into his driveway and across the grass, then down the alley. They have trucks
going in the alley constantly, such as the cable company who go into their driveway and
across the grass. He had sprinklers in the back and they went across that, then down to
get at the utility poles in the back.
Mayor Jacobs suggested if he had to move the rocks, that could be a place for them.
Mr. Harmening responded that there wouldn’t be anything the City could do on private
property to remedy that kind of a situation. Having this type of driveway access was not
that unusual in the community. They could find garages gaining access off of the side
street on corner lots and he hadn’t received many calls from people expressing problems
with that kind of cut-through. He didn’t believe there was anything special that could be
done, unless there was a grade change that might discourage that.
Ms. Hagen indicated that they could look at it. She assumed that if it were utility trucks
trying to access the power poles or something behind, they were using the driveway
because of the curb cut so that they didn’t have to jump the curb. Hopefully with the alley,
they wouldn’t be doing that, but they could look at possibly providing bushes as a buffer.
Mayor Jacobs stated it would be worthwhile to check. It would be a concern to have
utility trucks going through your back yard.
Mr. Deinema asked if there would be another hearing regarding the assessment?
Mayor Jacobs replied yes.
Mr. Harmening clarified that there would be two hearings, one on the project relating to the
design, and the second hearing related to the financial and assessment part of the project.
Michelle Griep, 4233 Ottawa, stated she had already gotten estimates on a garage and
was looking forward to building and having a garage. If they didn’t have an alley and
had a shared driveway, they had a drop on the side of their house and to come in from the
street and have a driveway, there would be a gigantic drop. The benefit was going to be
to everybody and would increase property values immensely. They had three teenagers
in their family and had three cars, soon to be four, that were all parked on the street. If
they could get a two-car garage with parking in the back, they would be off the street.
This would help with snow plowing and safety issues with children in the street. She was
very much in favor of this and it was a definitely needed in their life.
Patty Mickelson, 4205 Ottawa, indicated that she was opposed to the alley for many of the
same reasons as John and Phyllis (Deinema) at 4201. They felt there would be a 100%
increase in traffic behind their back yard (now it was an open lot) which came along with
dust, mud and noise. Now it was a peaceful, open lot and she could sit on her deck, look
out her back yard and see the open lot. Many of them have used the lot for their children
to ride bikes and play games. A question was if there would be snow removal and
maintenance because it would be a dead-end? That lead her to believe that people would
try to go in the alley at the same time as someone exiting the alley. Who would get the
right-of-way because it wasn’t a through alley? Were people going to start driving on her
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 7
side of the property line, off the black top and ruin her property? The telephone poles
were an issue because the telephone pole was right in her back yard. She would like
clarification on who was responsible for the pole and who would pay for relocation.
Mr. Olsen responded that typically poles were placed right on property lines, so with the
two foot buffer of green space between the alley, generally those poles would be left in
place and would be adjacent to the alley at those locations.
Ms. Mickelson stated a concern with drainage issues. They had lived in their home for
17 years and had no water damage in the basement. Now they would be redirecting the
drainage when the alley was constructed and she was fearful there might be some water.
Residents at the other end didn’t have to pay because they had a private drive, yet they
would receive an indirect benefit because these people were supposedly going to build
garages, yet they had a private drive and were not paying any of the cost. At the South
end of Ottawa there were three or four homes that paid the City years ago to put in a
private drive and they bought the land from the City. That was how they made an
entrance behind their homes. This alley would only go part way down and not connect to
the private drive and they wouldn’t have to pay. Why did they have to pay for something
that they didn’t want? She was totally opposed because she was not going to receive any
benefit, she was only going to receive an ugly alley out her back yard. One of the home
owners that signed the petition was no longer living there, she didn’t know if that had
been brought to anyone’s attention and asked how that affected this? This would invite
vandalism behind their homes. There would be children playing in the alley with the
possibility of children getting hit or run over. She was concerned about bikes or other
items being stolen out of people’s garages. Mr. Deinema brought up a good point that
those residents bought their homes knowing that they did not have a garage, therefore
they paid a lesser price for their homes, as they paid for theirs with a garage. They were
being penalized after all of those years of being a homeowner for having a garage and
being at the end of the area where the alley would go through. Do these homeowners that
want the alley have a deadline of when they are supposed to have a garage built? They
were saying no. This alley could potentially go through and one out of these five people
build a garage. In the end they could be paying for one person to have a garage. They
were being given a deadline to pay for this project by November and they don’t want to
pay for this, but they don’t have to have a deadline to build a garage.
Russell Clarke, 4229 Ottawa, indicated he was in favor of this. Yes, he did know when
he bought his home that there wasn’t a garage, but he had talked with some other
residents and they had expressed the concern of building a garage. Ms. Griep, he and the
two neighbors next to him definitely wanted to build garages and had talked about it over
the years. There would be a benefit because of safety issues. Now, with the kids in the
area, they ran into the street and rode bikes and having the cars off of the street would
increase the view for people driving down the street. Adding the alley would be a
benefit. He didn’t believe kids would play in the alley, but believed it would increase the
safety in front of the house. He also had a steep incline in the back of his home and it
would be dangerous even with a driveway to drive back into the garage and would pose
more of a safety issue if a child or pet ran out, there would be no way to stop if they hit
ice, they would slide down the hill. He was in favor of the alley being installed behind
the houses.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 8
Marilyn Lingwall, 4211 Ottawa, indicated she was totally against this. She agreed with
her other neighbors that it was a safety issue and financial issue. She thought it would be
a bad thing to have an alley because of the safety and the money. They had always had
an open field. She had lived there since 1986, that was one of the reasons she moved
there with a small child who played in that field. He was safe, all of the neighborhood
kids played back there. The people that were for the alley, had children who play in the
field, she had seen them riding their bikes. There are a lot of stray animals in the
neighborhood, they had been lost or stolen, what happens when they have an alley?
Children would be in an alley, it was a guarantee. Something bad would happen, there
would be a child stolen or a bad accident or a child would get killed. She was totally
against this, for all of the reasons as the previous speakers and her own.
Christine Lehman, 4225 Ottawa, stated she was in favor of the alley and believed it would
be a great improvement. The big open area is owned by the City of St. Louis Park and
there is a lot of dumping. There would still be a big area, the alley would only take up 14
feet. She felt it would be safer if the kids played in the alley than in the street in front of
their homes which was where the kids were playing now. She thought it would be a big
improvement and would improve property values and would be nice to have access to their
back yards. Most of them were up high and their back yards were down low.
Mark Griep, 4233 Ottawa, commented that this would move up single family homes for the
city which was one thing they were running low on space in their neighborhood. Having
access to the back for all of the other reasons that previous speakers gave would allow them
to build a garage. They had money set aside to build a garage and didn’t know if other
people did, but they would for sure build a garage if the alley was constructed. It would
provide them with more space and allow them to stay in the neighborhood and also provide
more safety in the front. He didn’t think it would affect kids playing in the back, there would
still be plenty of space, there was 4 ½ acres and the alley would only take up a little space.
Ms. Lingwall noted that a home two houses south of hers, had built a driveway out of
black top that went all the way to the property line and he drove his cars down there.
When people said they had steep inclines, so did he and he managed to do it all the time.
It wasn’t a steep incline that would be dangerous because he had the same setup.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger asked staff about the properties at the end of the block with the
private drive.
Mr. Olsen replied that the homes were located off of the cul-de-sac with a private drive to
access the first two and possibly the third home. He believed the property owners built
that years ago. Because the alley was not abutting those properties, it didn’t serve any
benefit to those properties following the alley assessment policy.
Councilmember Basill indicated when Ms. Mickelson spoke she talked about drainage
and one-way snow plowing and asked staff to address those issues. There had been a lot
of talk from the speakers about the design and asked staff to also address the process that
would happen with the neighbors.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 9
Mr. Olsen replied that they knew about drainage concerns and propagating drainage
across the alley. The alley was being constructed in a fashion where it would not obstruct
drainage from those properties. The flow of drainage would be from the back of the
yards toward the center of the city property. Water would leave their property, enter the
alley, run down the alley to the low point and spill off into the vacant property which
streamlined to enter a culvert at 42nd Street. Regarding design considerations, it was
discussed at the public meeting in April. When they move forward on the project and
construction, there would be an open house prior to construction where they would stake
out the alley and show where trees may be removed or any impact that may occur to
properties and they would work with the homeowners at that time.
Councilmember Basill asked how they would be notified of that process?
Mr. Olsen replied they would send a mailing and hold another meeting prior to construction.
Councilmember Basill clarified that the land behind would not become the individuals
private driveway, it would be City owned. There was a question earlier if the City
Attorney had looked at this, they were not giving away the property, they were putting an
alley there and assessing the cost, but the City still owned that land. If the project went
through, he hoped that the 62% of those in favor of this alley would be good stewards and
would make an effort to build garages. It had been brought up if they could be required
to build a garage, but they couldn’t require that. He hoped if they went through a project
like this and did this based on the policy, that the people who wanted it would build
garages and he encourage that.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt
Resolution No. 04-082 ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 4200 block of
Ottawa Avenue, Project No. 04-16, approving plans and specifications and authorizing
receipt of bids.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Olsen indicated that notice was sent to all of the abutting property owners about this
public hearing. In that notice it explained the assessment process and each individual
property owners cost for this assessment. The assessment would be for $34,000, half the
cost of the alley, to those eight property owners abutting the project.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
John Deinema, 4201 Ottawa, stated that he watched the previous Council meeting where
they had discussed the “slippery slope” of going 70/30 or 80/20, but he didn’t feel he
would get much benefit out of this alley. He would have to tear down his garage and turn
it a different angle. One of the Councilmembers said that maybe in the future these
people would decide to connect to the alley later on. If that were the case, he would have
to build two garages and he only had fourteen feet between his garage and the property
line and couldn’t possibly put another garage in, so he wouldn’t be able to connect to the
alley. There were people at the South end who had their own garages and own alley,
similar to him, he had his own garage and own driveway, they were not being assessed
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 10
and part of this 30% was because he was going to get an increase in his property value.
He would hate to have them get an increase in property values without having to
contribute as well. He thought there should be some mitigation in the 70/30 and
consideration of those at the far end of the alley that had their own driveways and
garages. They would get an increase in dirt, dust, noise a 100% increase in traffic that
they didn’t presently have and they were supposed to pay 30% of the project.
Mayor Jacobs clarified that this would be a paved alley and not dirt?
Mr. Olsen replied that was correct.
Patty Mickelson, 4205 Ottawa, asked how they determined a November date for the
payment if it hadn’t been officially approved.
Mr. Stepnick replied that the county collects the special assessment and it was their
procedure to take all early payments prior to November 30th, otherwise they would go on
the 20-year program and pay the special assessments with the property taxes. They
needed a cut off so when they certified all of the special assessment projects, they could
do it in time to make sure that the first payment on May 15th could be a special
assessment. There needed to be a cutoff to process it through Hennepin County.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they had to pay the whole special assessment by November 30th?
Mr. Stepnick replied that the advantage to paying prior to November 30th was that the
6.65 interest would not be incurred. Some people elected to do that and others went with
the 20-year program. If it was assessed and the special assessment went toward the taxes,
if you sell a property, it would be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.
Ms. Mickelson asked if they chose to do the payment program and then decided to pay it
all off, could they do that?
Mr. Stepnick replied that would be a third option. If it is specially assessed and certified
to the County and then they later elected in future years to pay off the balance, they could
do that at any time, but it needed to be the entire balance.
Marilyn Lingwall, 4211 Ottawa, asked what benefit it did for those opposed? They shouldn’t
have to pay, they didn’t want the alley and it didn’t benefit them at all or do anything for their
properties. All they had was an ugly, unsafe alley that benefited the rest of the people on the
block and not their three families. She couldn’t afford additional property taxes.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Santa asked for a point of clarification if this project had not gone out for bid?
Mr. Olsen replied that was correct.
Councilmember Santa asked if the sum they were asking for was an estimate that could
be a little bit higher or lower?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 11
Mr. Olsen replied that was correct, but they could not assess any higher than $68,000. If
they received a bid over that, the Council would have to consider how to make up the
difference. Typically, many of these projects fall under the Engineers estimates.
Councilmember Santa clarified that $68,000 for the project was the maximum.
Ms. Hagen indicated if the project costs came in less, the dollar amounts would go down
as well. It was based on the actual cost at the end of the project.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated the last time they discussed this issue they talked about
not getting on that “slippery slope.” He drove out and visited the property, but was not
aware of the fact that there was a private cul-de-sac with a private driveway and those
people didn’t seem to be getting a benefit either, which was a little troubling. They had
talked about not departing from the 70%/30% direct/indirect benefit and he wondered if
the Council should be revisiting that issue.
Councilmember Basill thought when he looked at the area and was out there, there was
no question that if he lived in those three homes he wouldn’t want it and if he lived in the
other five, he would want this. It was very clear that where you lived would be where
you would end up having a decision on this. What he struggled with the most was not
whether they should do it, he thought they needed to do it. They had a shortage of move-
up housing and needed garages in Minnesota. They wanted to provide people a way to
have garages in St. Louis Park and not leave and go out to Eden Prairie or other areas,
they wanted people to stay there and had a great need for move-up single family homes.
He was completely supportive of this project from day one. The issue that he struggled
with all along was the assessment. At first they looked at it and realized City property
was abutting it and believed the City should pay a share because they owned the property.
Next there was the issue of what the appropriate assessment was. The policy says 70/30,
but this was a unique situation. They asked staff to put together a chart showing 70/30,
75/25, 80/20 or 90/10, they looked at that and could possibly discuss it further. He was
supportive of this project, they needed to approve it and move forward. The only
question he wrestled with was if they should change from their policy.
Councilmember Sanger felt that every time they deal with these issues, at the end of the
day even people who didn’t want to build a new garage on a new alley did benefit
because it benefited the property values in the whole area. At some point in the future
they may decide to revisit this policy, but they had a policy now and she didn’t see
anything unique about this block compared to any other blocks where they had built
alleys and the same issues arose where people felt they weren’t being benefited to the
same degree. She thought they were benefited in a different way by the improvements to
the houses around them and that raised the values for the whole neighborhood. People
who already had alleys paid for them one way or another, either because there was an
assessment for them or reflected in the higher price they paid for their homes. She was in
support of going forward with the alley assessment according to the current policy. They
had already discussed this at quite some length and it was time to move on.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 12
Councilmember Velick agreed and could use an example in Ward 4 where they had open land
and were going to construct something in the open land and what a benefit it would be because
now, with open land, just like this open land, it had a lot of refuse and people were dumping.
It would be a benefit because they would not have that dirt and dumping anymore.
Councilmember Basill asked for clarification if that was an alley project?
Councilmember Velick replied it was not an alley project, but she was using open land in
general as being a place for junk and dumping.
Councilmember Basill stated that this was the part he struggled with the most because he
had gone out and looked at different areas, the one thing that made this slightly different
was that most of the time they were dealing with a dirt alley. In this case the three
homeowners, people weren’t already driving behind the house and having dust blown up
as they sat on their deck. He completely agreed with Councilmember Sanger that there
was an indirect benefit to the values of their property and that others who have had alleys
had paid. There was also an indirect benefit by getting cars off of the street. Whether
they wanted to think that was a benefit or not, it was a benefit because the streets were
plowed better, it was safer, the homes stood out more, when visitors came they had a
place to park that was convenient, so there was an indirect benefit. The indirect benefit
that these people would not get that he saw on 95% of the other alley projects was that
they were not going to get the dust eliminated that they saw in most of the alley projects
because right now there was no dust because it was a grassy area.
Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Sanger that she didn’t find a
compelling enough reason to waiver from the previous policy, although she thought they
might want to address it at some point in the future. She hoped that Mr. Deinema found
that the alley would get people out of his driveway and using the alley, and that would be
an indirect value for him. She believed there was an indirect benefit that was consistent
enough with previous practice that she wished to go forward with the 70/30.
Mayor Jacobs also shared Councilmember Sanger’s view on this. As he was reading this,
he felt the voice of an old friend whispering in his ear, Len Thiel who was the Mayor of
St. Louis Park in the 1960’s. They had these discussions and many times this was a
bigger deal in the 1960’s because they were paving streets and building storm sewers and
he asked him about where the indirect/direct benefit notion come from and he said that it
developed over the course of many years with a lot of trial and error and every situation
was different. The public hearings they used to have were dreadfully long and had to do
with storm sewers because the guy at the top of the hill never wanted to have to pay for
the storm sewer for the guy at the bottom of the hill and could see no benefit at all for
storm sewers and the kinds of things that would benefit the whole community, yet there
was an indirect benefit to them. He saw some unique circumstances that there was not an
existing alley that people were already driving on that would be cleaned up, so it was
different to that extent. But was it different enough to warrant a change from a time
honored policy, he didn’t think so. They had to be careful about granting a sort of
variance for special assessments because at the end of the day, nobody walks away happy
and he thought that was a bad result. He had sympathy for the people opposed to this, but
there was enough indirect benefit to them because of cars off the street and ease of
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 13
plowing snow. It was a close call, but there was no compelling reason to change the way
they had done these over the course of 50 years. It was not easy for them.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Mayor Jacobs and thought it made sense that
they didn’t want to get into a situation where every time they did a special assessment it
almost became like a variance hearing. He would support the majority position, but
would like to bring this back to study session within the next year, to review what
assumptions they were using in the 70/30 split and whether that made sense in this day.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that it would be worthwhile to look at that.
Councilmember Basill thought that Councilmember Finkelstein’s point was valid. They
should learn from this and it probably merited bringing to study session the policy to ask
if 10% of the indirect value was getting cars of the street or 10% that there was not going
to be dust from the alley or 10% the access, because in a case like this they would not be
making an arbitrary decision. They should bring it back for a study session.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa to adopt
Resolution No. 04-083 establishing the assessment for Project No. 04-16, construction of
alley for 4200 block of Ottawa Ave.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mayor Jacobs indicated they would be in touch with the neighborhood when they were
ready to begin construction.
Mr. Olsen replied that they would be doing bids in July/August and construction in
September/October and there would be more discussion with the neighborhood.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Water Feasibility Report: Water Treatment Plant Filter Rehabilitation
Project– Project No. 20041300 Resolution No. 04-084
Mr. Anderson indicated that they were referring to feasibility report for water treatment
plant #10. They had put in the CIP, the rehabilitation for the water treatment plants are
getting old and needed major work. Part of the work was changing the filter media which
was a process of cleaning the water and taking the iron and manganese out of the water.
During that process that had been in the CIP for a few years, there have recently been some
elevated levels of radium which added another piece to this project for radium removal.
They had incorporated the radium removal in with the water treatment plant rehab. The
additional work done for that would reduce the radium levels and also reduce the iron and
manganese levels in the water. This project was for one treatment plant, they would be
before the Council again to do the other treatment plants. There were six treatment plants,
four were affected by radium, so there would be radium removal in four of the six plants.
All six plants would be rehabbed in the near future. This was for water treatment plant #10.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 14
Councilmember Sanger felt it was important for the viewers at home who were listening
to this that this was being done for future cost effectiveness purposes and not because
there was any kind of health hazard associated with their water.
Mr. Anderson added that the level for iron removal was a secondary level which was .3
part per million removal and they wanted to get below that parts per million of iron. Now
the plants were operating in the .2 to .3 range. By changing the filter media they would
be dropping it below .1 and improve the quality of the water.
Councilmember Sanger indicated it would help them keep having clean water in the
future in a cost effective manner.
Mr. Anderson indicated it stated in the resolution that the report was received from the
Utility Superintendent and that the bids shall be tabulated by the Utility Superintendent.
That should be changed to ”Director of Public Works”. It was the introduction paragraph
and sections 3 and 5.
Councilmember Sanger asked when this would be done?
Mr. Anderson replied they would like to put it out for bids, the specifications were ready to go
out and they would be advertising July 29-August 13th for bids. Bids would come in August
and then come before the Council with an award presentation on the September 7th meeting.
Council member Santa asked once they got the bids, how long did the process of
rehabilitating a water treatment plant take?
Mr. Anderson replied if everything went as planned, about 40 days.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 04-084 accepting this report, establishing and ordering
Improvement Project No. 20041300, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing
advertisement for bids, with an amendment resolution changing “Utility
Superintendent” in the Introduction and Sections 3 and 5 to ”Director of Public Works”.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Request by Charles Stinson to vacate utility easement at 2545 Huntington
Avenue South, Case Nos. 04-13-VAC, 2545 Huntington Ave S.
Ordinance No. 2274-04
Mr. Locke indicated that this was acted on at the June 21st meeting and the first reading
was approved by the City Council. It was a vacation of a utility easement necessary for
the Biltmore Addition subdivision that was also acted on in June. There were no utilities
in the easement and Public Works had reviewed it.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve Ordinance No. 2274-04 to vacate a utility easement at 2545 Huntington Ave
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 3a - City Council Minutes of 7-19-04
Page 15
South as requested by Biltmore Land Group, adopt ordinance, approve summary and
authorization publication.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she would be opposing this motion for the same
reasons that she had opposed this entire project all along.
The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Sanger opposed.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs indicated he had received good feedback on the recent fireworks. They were some
of the best in the Western suburbs and he wanted to congratulate staff and the people who did the
fireworks. The Fourth of July was a smashing success.
Councilmember Velick wanted to note better than the best fireworks in the West, they had the
best Police and Dispatch. She had the opportunity to have a ride along and see how things
worked. She learned a lot and they were good people. She thanked the Police and Dispatch.
10. Adjournment
The City Council meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. to an Executive Session.
11. Executive Session to discuss City Manager Performance Evaluation
At 8:40 p.m., the Council moved to executive session to discuss the City Manager
performance evaluation. All Councilmembers were present.
City Manager Tom Harmening arrived at 8:50 p.m. and attended the remainder of the
Executive Session.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to adjourn
the Executive Session.
The motion passed 7-0.
The Executive Session was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 080204 - 4a - Fiber Optic Network Contract
Page 1
4a. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Parsons Technologies the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$496,543.00 for construction of a fiber optic network to connect certain City and
School District buildings.
Background: Staff and Council discussed the present project at the Council’s May 24 study
session and staff was given direction to proceed and return to Council with an authorization to
bid. That occurred and bids were received on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 for the fiber optic project.
This project is designed to replace most existing data connections between City buildings,
connections leased from Qwest Communications. These connections will be replaced with a
high-speed (broadband) network that is designed to interconnect the City Hall / Police Station
campus with several other sites, including the Municipal Service Center, Utilities Shop, Fire
Stations 1 and 2, Westwood Nature Center, Recreation Center, and Meadowbrook COP Shop. In
addition, a major interconnection under I-394 and through the City of Golden Valley will allow
for high-speed connectivity to the Internet and LOGIS, which provides many of the City’s
mission-critical information systems.
This bid represents completion of a cooperative project between the City and Independent
School District 283. The School District constructed its high-speed network in 1997, and
planning took into consideration future use of the network by the City. As a result, the City is
now able to take advantage of much of the existing fiber optic plant. As part of the current
project, the School District is also aiming to make some planned improvements to enhance its
network reliability and capacity. As indicated at the study session, the net result is that the City
and Schools will share one network as opposed to each building its own. This reduces physical
disruption to the right-of-way and costs. It increases cooperation and shared on-going
maintenance and redundancy.
The Hennepin County Library located on Library Lane has also indicated its strong interest in
partnering on this network project. In essence, this would allow the St. Louis Park branch to
interconnect with the rest of the library system. That will occur as a separately bid project along
with the cities of Minnetonka and Edina, which will then complete their fiber networks and
interconnect with LOGIS via the St. Louis Park network backbone. These phases are expected to
occur over the next two years.
For all these public entities, construction and use of a jointly owned and shared network provides
greater broadband capacity with a total cost of ownership that is much more favorable than
current costs of the leased lines. In addition, the fiber optic network being planned includes
potential capability to carry voice, video, and radio transmission between City buildings.
Per Council direction, a separate project that staff will continue to research is the concept of
wireless Internet access for residents and businesses, similar to the City of Chaska model.
A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published
in the Sun Sailor on June 24 and July 1 , 2004 and in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on June 27,
2004. Contractors had the opportunity to bid on both the preferred option of underground
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 080204 - 4a - Fiber Optic Network Contract
Page 2
construction of the network to connect major required sites, and a number of alternate sites and
aerial network construction. A summary of the bid results for the preferred underground option
for major required sites is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Parsons Technologies $434,408.00
C & L Communications, Inc. $643,037.25
MP Nexlevel, LLC $858,001.70
Evaluation of Bids: Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results.
Results indicate that the preferred underground construction option is also the lowest responsible
bid. From the review, staff recommends Parsons Technologies as the lowest responsible bidder.
Parsons Technologies is a reputable contractor who has performed satisfactory work on similar
projects in other LOGIS cities.
Alternate City Sites: In addition to required sites, several alternate City sites were bid, including
the following with bid costs from Parsons:
Meadowbrook COP Shop $15,295.00
Texa-Tonka COP Shop $32,475.00
Excelsior & Grand COP Shop $28,040.00
From a cost-benefit perspective, staff recommends only the Meadowbrook COP Shop alternate.
Until conditions change, the Texa-Tonka and Excelsior & Grand COP Shops can continue to
connect to the City network with existing Time Warner Cable and Qwest lines. Staff plans to re-
bid these sites as part of upcoming fiber bids by LOGIS cities and hopefully obtain more
favorable pricing.
Alternate School Sites: Additional stands of fiber for capacity and redundancy are planned for
the Schools as part of this project to the following locations.
Schools – Georgia Avenue & 28th Street West $6,375.00
Schools – Recreation Center $7,780.00
Schools – Central Community Center $28,455.00
Schools – Brookview Community Center $4,230.00
The above dollar amounts are included in the bid amount recommended for approval and the
City will be reimbursed by the School District.
Financial Considerations: The City segments of these improvements are being funded through
the Technology Replacement Fund (TRF). Existing TRF monies were provided in large part by a
transfer from the Cable TV fund to support technology maintenance and enhancements. The
required sites ($434,408.00) plus the Meadowbrook COP Shop alternate ($15,295.00) generate a
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 080204 - 4a - Fiber Optic Network Contract
Page 3
total of $449,703.00. This total cost would be offset with funds from LOGIS ($45,000)
representing the LOGIS-wide shared segment of the network crossing I-394. A future
reimbursement from Hennepin County Library to defray network connection and fiber strand
costs will also be agreed upon when that project is approved.
The original cost estimate for the City share of this project was $300,000, and the actual low bid
is $404,703.00 ($449,703.00 - $45,000.00 LOGIS share). Unfortunately, market conditions have
changed significantly with greater demand for fiber construction. On the other hand, the entire
fiber network will be constructed underground, enhancing neighborhood appearance and
network security. Looking strictly at Qwest lease line cost considerations, the payback period is
estimated to be 8 – 13 years. However adding in associated point-to-point termination
equipment, which is relatively less expensive with fiber optics, that payback period is
conservatively in the 6 – 10 year range. And, the estimated useful life of the fiber optic
investment is multiple times greater as it would become outmoded when we can exceed the
speed of light. In addition, other softer benefits accrue as a result of greater capacity, speed, and
functionality.
The Technology Replacement Fund currently has sufficient funds to pay for this project, and also
have an estimated positive balance of $200,000 at the end of 2005. Still, this Fund does not
currently have a major sufficient on-going source of funding, a topic staff wants to discuss with
Council this budget season.
LOGIS and the Schools will pay their share of $45,000 and $46,840.00, respectively, through a
re-payment schedule to the City. The City will work with the Schools and LOGIS to ensure
appropriate and timely reimbursement of project costs. The Schools will provide the City and
LOGIS access to its existing fiber optic network during and after the project. Staff estimates the
value of the School’s network to at least equate, and more likely exceed the value of this current
project. This illustrates just one of the significant benefits of this City – School – LOGIS –
Library – Edina – Minnetonka partnership.
Construction Timeline: Work is anticipated to begin in late August and be completed by the
end of 2005, contingent on weather conditions affecting underground work and the St. Louis
Park Schools schedule. Interagency network maintenance and use agreements will also be
developed during construction.
Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 5-27-04
Page 1
MINUTES MAY 27, 2004
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, May 27, 2004, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair Susan Bloyer
Commissioner James Gainsley
Commissioner Tom Powers
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: Vice Chair Ryan Burt
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Bloyer called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve the
following minutes as presented with the following corrections:
Page 4, close public hearing.
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated April
22, 2004.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Case No. 03-71-VAR; Approve Resolution No. 19-03, Susan and Dave Fink of 3941 Lynn
Avenue South granting a variance from the requirements of Section 36-162(c)(7)2ii of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow a 2 foot side yard and a 2 foot rear yard instead
of the required 7 foot side yard and 25 foot rear yard for a proposed 21 foot by 28 foot
detached garage for property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 3941
Lynn Avenue South.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 5-27-04
Page 2
Motion by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Gainsley, to approve Resolution
No. 19-03 to grant a variance from the requirements of Section 36-162(c)(7)2ii of the Ordinance
Code relating to zoning to allow a 2 foot side yard and a 2 foot rear yard instead of the required 7
foot side yard and 25 foot rear yard for a proposed 21 foot by 28 foot detached garage for
property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 3941 Lynn Avenue South.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 04-34-VAR – The request of Jeffrey and Judith Weber from the
requirements of Section 36-164(f)(5) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to
allow an 18.5 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard for the construction of a
home addition and attached garage to be located within the required rear yard for
property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 3620 Huntington
Avenue.
Staff believes that all seven of the seven findings have been met and recommends that the Board
of Zoning Appeals approve the applicants’ request for an 18.5 foot variance to the required 25
foot rear yard for the construction of a home addition and attached garage to be located within the
required rear yard, with the following conditions:
1. The variance is only for the construction of an addition as illustrated in Exhibit A.
With no more questions, Chair Bloyer opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Weber, applicant of 3620 Huntington Avenue stated he would like to improve his
property by constructing a larger garage which would allow more than one vehicle and would
like his 2nd generation home to be upgraded to today’s quality of residency.
Jim Batchelor, neighbor, 3642 Huntington Avenue stated he feels this variance will increase
property values in the neighborhood and will not create any hardship for the neighborhood.
Therefore, he is in favor of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant Mr. and Mrs. Weber the
variance
Chad Zimmerman, neighbor, 3614 Glenhurst Avenue is in support of Mr. and Mrs. Weber’s
home addition and hopes the variance is given.
Chair Bloyer stated a letter was received by Michael Sexton of 3620 Avenue in support of the
proposed addition and remodeling of 3620 Huntington Avenue.
Christine Albertsson of Albertsson Hansen Architecture has prepared Mr. and Mrs. Weber’s
proposed house plans and is available for any questions.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 5-27-04
Page 3
Chair Bloyer asked staff if there are garage height limitations on attached garages.
Mr. Morrison stated there are no height limitations for attached garages, only detached garages.
With no more questions, Chair Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Powers stated that when he first saw the proposed addition drawings he felt that
the applicants were going to create an oversized home on a small lot. After driving by the
applicants existing home and neighborhood he feels the addition will add great value to the
neighborhood. Also, he spoke with a neighbor whom was in favor of the proposed project.
Commissioner Roberts would like to move for approval based on staff’s recommendation to
allow an 18.5 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard for the construction of a home
addition and attached garage to be located within the required rear yard subject to the
following conditions: 1. The variance is only for the construction of an addition as illustrated
in Exhibit A.
Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Powers, to approve Resolution
No. 02-04 to allow to allow an 18.5 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard for the
construction of a home addition and attached garage to be located within the required rear yard
subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is only for the construction of an addition
as illustrated in Exhibit A for property at 3620 Huntington Avenue..
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Bloyer, Gainsley, Powers and Roberts. Voting No: None.
5. Old Business
Commissioner Bloyer stated she would like to receive an updated CD disk of the city
ordinance.
Commissioners agreed they would all like a disk of the city ordinance.
6. New Business
None
7. Communications
None
8. Miscellaneous
None
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 4c - BOZA Minutes of 5-27-04
Page 4
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Roberts moved and Commissioner Powers seconded the motion for adjournment.
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 4d - Human Rights Minutes of 6-16-04
Page 1
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – June 16, 2004
Westwood Room, City Hall
Call to Order
Commissioner Maddali called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. There being no quorum, only
discussion was held and no actions taken.
Present
Commissioners: Colleen Clark, Seema Maddali and Julie Kirsch.
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison
Commissioner Report
Ms. McDonell reported that she had hired a student intern (Anna Derek) for three months who
would be assisting with the distribution of the diversity survey.
Old Business
A. Report on the school presentation at Cedar Manor for the Essay contest winner
Ms. McDonell displayed a photo from the presentation. (Commissioner Maddali, Katie Rawls
(winner), parents Tim and Deb Rawls, Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Commissioner Armbrecht.). Ms.
Maddali thought it was a proud moment for Cedar Manor. Ms. McDonell thought it was a good
change to present the award at the school and not at the City Council meeting.
B. Report on Fire Open House table
Ms. McDonell indicated that the open house went very well and was very busy, but there were only
three surveys submitted. People were not able to take the time to fill out the surveys because the
event was more for people with little children who were interested in other activities at the open
house. Ms. Maddali thought that each event was geared toward a different demographic and the ice
cream social was more casual and allowed people more time to fill surveys out.
Ms. McDonell updated the Commission about the Parktacular event. The Commissioners were
invited to ride on a double-decker bus in the parade. Ms. Rudelius-Palmer would be representing
the Commission on the bus.
C. Continue discussion of the distribution of the diversity survey
Ms. McDonell distributed the survey distribution list and asked for input on items to be removed
and added. The following changes were recommended: Mayor’s Youth Summit, Children First
ice cream social, Fire Open house (completed); Central Community Center should be changed to
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 4d - Human Rights Minutes of 6-16-04
Page 2
Free Clinic. Ms. Kirsch updated the Commission about research she had done on the JCC Jewish
Comm. Center and that she was unable to find a contact person. She would follow up further. The
program was more of an English language program and not the Jewish Comm. Center. Remove
Post Office and Dollar Store; Move Grocery Store (i.e. Cub Foods, Sam’s Club, Costco and
Byerly’s) and Retail Stores (i.e. Target, Walgreens, Knollwood) to the Employer Section and Ms.
Maddali would research; Remove Main Theater and Bowling Alleys; Ms. McDonell would
research City Hall and the possibility of distributing the survey when residents were doing
homesteading or visiting the Inspections counter; Remove Post Office, Fire Station and City Hall.
Remove Aquilla “ACT” – Social Workers Cedar Manor “ACT” – Social Workers and YES Kids;
Change Faith Communities to low priority; Remove Schools. The Intern could be assigned to
research Doubletree Hotel, Health Partners Clinic and Park Nicollet Clinic. Ms. Maddali
volunteered to research distributing the survey to Methodist Hospital employee’s . It was
suggested to consider the employees at Knollwood Mall and also add small retail centers such as
the Cedar Louisiana strip mall; Almsted’s Super Valu, Home Depot and Novartis.
Ms. McDonell indicated she would revise the list and send it to the Commissioners via Email
Ms. Clark had been checking on the ESL teachers at the high school. She had a potential
volunteer opportunity to teach English and could look into that.
Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Ms. Maddali indicated that the Commission had talked about submitting articles to the
newspaper each month. Ms. McDonell indicated it hadn’t been on the agenda since that time.
Ms. Maddali noted that Commissioner Armbrecht sent an Email with a list assigning
Commissioners to different months, but she didn’t believe anything had been done. The
Commission needed to be more proactive to make themselves more visible.
Ms. Maddali suggested that the Commission consider a different meeting schedule in the
summer (and also November and December) because people are busier and not always able to
attend. Many other Commissions combine two months of meetings.
Ms. McDonell indicated she would add that to the next agenda for discussion. She would also
add the survey and review of the fall calendar.
Ms. Maddali asked how the Commission had assessed their performance in the past? Ms. McDonell
replied that this Commission has always had a work plan and in January they looked at the work
plan to see what had been done. It is usually done on a yearly basis and was a self-review. There is
currently a three-year work plan. Ms. Maddali believed they needed more objective measures.
Ms. McDonell would add the performance measurements as an agenda item at the next meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 1
6a. Public Hearing - Elmwood Village Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution establishing the Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District (a renewal and renovation district) within Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
- Close public hearing.
-Motion to adopt the resolution approving the elimination
of parcels from the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment
Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF
District No. 1302), within Redevelopment Project No. 1,
in the City of St. Louis Park).
-Motion to adopt the resolution modifying Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and establishing the Elmwood Village Tax
Increment Financing District and adopting a Tax Increment
Financing Plan therefor.
Background
In early April 2004, Rottlund Homes purchased the entire 9.57-acre Quadion Corp
manufacturing site (which included property on both sides of Wooddale Avenue and two houses
along the north side of Oxford Street) for redevelopment purposes. Under an approved plan
called Alternative 1, the developer would demolish the former manufacturing facilities and
construct senior housing and market rate condominiums. Rottlund would also purchase
separately the remaining two houses along the north side of Oxford Street, remove all four
houses and, in their place, construct townhomes. All together, the developer would construct 80
senior condominiums, 63 loft condominiums, and 78 townhomes on the site west of Wooddale.
The three story office building at 5957 37th Street would remain and be resold by the developer
to another party. General redevelopment plans for the commercial property east of Wooddale
call for commercial mixed use on the property and a small pocket park/plaza on the southeast
corner of Wooddale and 36th Street.
Planning Approvals
The proposed redevelopment is subject to all planning and zoning requirements related to a
PUD. At the March 22, 2004 Council meeting, Rottlund Homes received approval of its
Alternative 1 preliminary PUD and plat subject to conditions. The developer’s application for a
final PUD and plat was approved by the Planning Commission on July 7th and is scheduled for
City Council consideration at its upcoming August 2, 2004 meeting.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 2
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/Council reviewed the preliminary TIF application from Rottlund Homes for its
proposed housing project at the May 24, 2004 study session where it was favorably received. At
its June 7th meeting, the Council set a public hearing date of August 2nd to discuss the
establishment of the proposed Renewal and Renovation TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on July 21st and found
that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Elmwood
Village Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
The Elmwood Village TIF District consists of seventeen (17) properties located primarily along
the west side of Wooddale Ave from Highway 7 on the north to Goodrich Ave on the south
(please see map of the Elmwood Village TIF District in the attached TIF Plan). The boundaries
were determined based upon expected future infrastructure needs identified within the District.
Four of the properties proposed to be included in the Elmwood Village TIF District (Parcel
numbers 1611721330091, 1611721330092, 1611721330089, and 1611721330094) were
originally included in the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment TIF District. Since the same
properties cannot be included within two different TIF districts the Council is being requested in
the attached resolution to eliminate these parcels from the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment TIF
District.
At the May 24, 2004 study session, it was demonstrated that the developer would incur a
financing gap if it were to pursue Alternative 1 (the development plan preferred by the City).
The gap was due to the cost of acquiring two additional houses, as well as additional demolition
and site preparation costs. It was, therefore, agreed that Rottlund Homes’ request for $720,420
in TIF assistance (over a term of approximately 4 years) was reasonable. Since that time,
approximately $69,500 in additional costs for which the developer would be responsible have
been identified. These additional costs would not alter the term of the note which would remain
at four years. Staff, therefore, recommends adjusting the total TIF amount to $790,000.
Property Value
Currently, the former Quadion property west of Wooddale Ave. and the four homes along
Oxford Street have a total market value of $3,670,300. The projected market value of the
property upon redevelopment will be approximately $52,420,000. The property taxes payable in
2004 on these same 7.44 acres is $99,209. Upon redevelopment, the site will generate an
estimated $746,849 in property taxes.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 3
Classification of the District
The type of TIF district proposed for the subject project is a Renewal and Renovation TIF
District. The proposed District meets statutory criteria for establishment of a Renewal and
Renovation TIF District based on the following findings of fact:
• The District is a renewal and renovation district consisting of 17 parcels.
• An inventory shows that the parcels which are occupied (meaning that more than 15% of
the area of the parcel is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking
lots, or other similar structures) constitute over 70% of the area of the District.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 20 percent
of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 30 percent
of the buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions
such as defined in the TIF Act.
Duration of the District
As authorized by statute, the duration of renewal and renovation districts is 15 years after receipt
of the first increment by the City (a total of 16 years of tax increment). The City expects receipt
of the first full tax increment in 2007. Thus, it is estimated that the District would terminate after
2022, or when the TIF plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2006, the term of the District
will be 2021. The EDA or City has the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required
date.
Fiscal Disparities Election
In keeping with the City’s TIF Policy, the District will contribute to fiscal disparities.
Recommendation
The proposed TIF Plan and accompanying resolutions have been prepared by the EDA’s
financial and legal consultants, in consultation with staff. Staff recommends approval of the
attached resolutions eliminating parcels from the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment Tax
Increment Financing District, modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the
Elmwood Village TIF District as presented.
Attachments:
• Resolution
• TIF Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 04-090
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM
THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 7 REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT (HENNEPIN COUNTY TIF DISTRICT NO.
1302), WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK.
WHEREAS, on April 15, 1985, the City of St. Louis Park City Council (the "City)
established the Trunk Highway 7 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF
District") within its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") is the
administrative authority for the TIF District; and
WHEREAS, the TIF District, in part, included the following parcel numbers which were
previously certified in the TIF District:
1611721330091 1611721330089*
1611721330092 1611721330094
* "Knocked Down" parcel being removed from the TIF District; and
WHEREAS, the City desires by this resolution to cause the elimination of the parcel
numbers listed above (the "parcels") within the TIF District thereby reducing the size of the TIF
District; and
WHEREAS, because the total current net tax capacity of the parcels to be eliminated
from the TIF District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of the parcels in the TIF District's
original net tax capacity, the holding of a public hearing is not required pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 4:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City that the parcels listed in this
resolution are hereby eliminated from the TIF District and the City's staff shall take such action
as is necessary to notify Hennepin County of the reduction in the geographic area of the TIF
District caused by the elimination of such parcels.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 5
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
_________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________ (Seal)
City Clerk
________________________________
Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
(Seal)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 6
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 04-091
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND ESTABLISHING THE ELMWOOD VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the City of St. Louis Park (the
"EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted a Redevelopment
Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and establish the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the
"District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the
Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the
''Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans
to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but
not limited to, notification of County of Hennepin and Independent School District No. 283
having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written
comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing
upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include
environmental studies, data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis
for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms,
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 7
ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of
this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public
interest and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby
incorporated herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is a "renewal and renovation district"
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10a.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan, that the Plans conform to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will
afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act.
The Plans will facilitate various public improvements associated the construction of over 250
units of housing and new commercial facilities in Elmwood Neighborhood, which will improve
the tax base and improve the general economy of the State, and thereby serves a public purpose.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 8
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Coordinator.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County (the "Auditor") is requested to certify the
original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year
thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the
City is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the Auditor in such form and
content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for
which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the
adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file
a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
_________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________ (Seal)
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 9
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District is a renewal and
renovation district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10a.
The District consists of 17 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and
commercial purposes. The development will consist of over 250 units of housing and new
commercial facilities in Elmwood Neighborhood. More than 70 percent of the area in the
District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similar structures and more than 20 percent of the buildings in the District are structurally
substandard, and more than 30 percent are requiring substantial renovation or clearance.
(See Appendix F of the TIF Plan)
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Elmwood
Village Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The first
phase of the proposed development will occur in the area generally west of Wooddale
Avenue on the site of the former Quadion building. This portion of the District is occupied
by substandard buildings and other buildings that meet a lesser standard of obsolescence, all
as further described in Appendix F. The first phase requires demolition of all the existing
structures (except an existing office building) and construction of 224 owner-occupied
housing units by Rottlund Homes. The City has analyzed a proforma submitted by the
developer, which, in the City's opinion, demonstrates that development at the proposed
density (which is consistent with the City's Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and
Transportation Study) would not be feasible without the tax increment assistance provided
under this plan. The amount of assistance to Rottlund is estimated to be less than $900,000.
The second phase of proposed development consists of approximately 75 units of housing
and approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial development east of Wooddale
together with approximately 50,000 square feet of commercial development along Highway
7. Other needs include acquisition, demolition and/or relocation to permit the proposed
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 10
developments. Further, in order to make such redevelopment feasible, the City will need to
undertake improvements to the intersection of Wooddale and Highway 7, including new
turn lanes and new frontage road access, and storm sewer and street improvements to
Wooddale itself. The City believes that if such public improvement costs were assessed to
the affected property, the assessments together with the other extraordinary costs of
demolition and relocation would make redevelopment extremely unlikely (based on the
City's previous experience with similar situations).
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated
to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan:
Regarding the first phase of the Rottlund Homes proposal, the proposed developer might be
able to develop a smaller phase 1 project without tax increment assistance, but that project
would exclude portions of the proposed site, and would produce $4.5 million less in market
value annually for a $900,000 TIF investment present value TIF investment. Regarding the
area east of Wooddale and along Highway 7, any alternative development would require the
type of public improvements discussed above, and the city has no basis for believing that
redevelopment of any kind which would meet current zoning requirements would occur in
these areas without tax increment assistance to finance such improvements. It is important
to note that the redevelopment of the Elmwood area is not simply one phase, but is an
interconnected series of developments which all share common infrastructure, pursuant to
the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation Study. The increased traffic,
storm sewer drainage requirements, potential new connections to Highway 7 and Highway
100 which serve all phases of development, as well as a potential mass transit station in the
future, will require substantial public investment to enable the private investment to
proceed.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District
will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0, or at the most,
$45,610,000, if the alternative phase 1 housing development were to occur.
b. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to
occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to
$77,682,800
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration
of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $7,125,656. (See
Appendix G in the TIF Plan)
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur,
the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6a - Elmwood Village TIF District
Page 11
value increase greater than $70,557,144 (the amount in clause b less the amount
in clause c) without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the
municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to
the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Elmwood Village Tax Increment
Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by
private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in the redevelopment of a vacated
manufacturing site, preserve and enhance the tax base, and provide an impetus for
residential development, which is desirable and necessary for increased population and an
increased need for life-cycle renewal and renovation within the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 1
6b. Public Hearing - Aquila Commons Tax Increment Finance District
This report considers a resolution establishing the Aquila Commons Tax Increment
Financing District (a housing district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Close public hearing. Motion to adopt the resolution modifying
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila
Commons Tax Increment Financing District and adopting a Tax
Increment Financing Plan therefor subject to City Council
approval of the pending amendment to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan changing the land use designation of the subject property.
Background
Stonebridge Development has signed a purchase agreement for the currently vacant Talmud
Torah School property located at 8200 West 33rd Street. The developer plans to demolish the
existing school building and construct a 122 unit senior housing development (Aquila Commons)
in its place. The 170,000 square foot building would be “U” shaped with a surface parking lot
accessed off of 33rd Street and access to underground parking off of Virginia Avenue. The
building wings on the east and west sides would be three stories and the middle portion would be
four stories. Unit sizes would range from 902 SF (1-bedroom) to 1,457 SF (2 bedrooms & den).
Most units would have balconies and storage space would be provided on each floor. The senior
facility would feature a craft room, party room, exercise room, library, guest suite, and a
workshop. The plan proposes garden plots on the east side of the building and an outdoor front
porch area with gardens, arbors, water features and benches in front of the main entry (south side
of the building). Sidewalks are shown throughout the site and along most street frontages.
The housing development would be structured as a limited equity cooperative; an affordable
housing option not currently available to seniors in St. Louis Park. Cooperatives are a form of
housing in which residents own their units by purchasing a piece of the corporation that owns the
building on behalf of the residents. Residents then pay a monthly fee to cover the master
mortgage and costs of operating and maintaining the building. This type of cooperative allows
for lower operating costs, limited growth of equity, while receiving the same tax advantages as
home owners.
Planning Approvals
The proposed redevelopment is subject to all planning and zoning requirements related to a
PUD. The developer’s application for a Preliminary and Final PUD and plat is scheduled for
Planning Commission consideration at its upcoming August 18th meeting.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 2
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/Council reviewed the preliminary TIF application from Stonebridge Development for
a senior cooperative housing project at its December 8, 2003 and February 20, 2004 study
sessions. The developer’s revised TIF application was discussed at the April 26, 2004 study
session where it was favorably received. At its May 3rd meeting, the Council set a public
hearing date of August 2, 2004 for the proposed Housing TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
Plan on July 21st and found that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A
neighborhood meeting was held on July 28th at which the proposed TIF Plan was discussed.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Aquila
Commons Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
The Aquila Commons TIF District consists of a single property located at 8200 West 33rd Street.
A map of the Aquila Commons TIF District is provided in the attached TIF Plan. Aquila
Commons Investors LLC (Stonebridge Development) is requesting $1,077,500 in TIF assistance
for a period not to exceed 9 years.
Property Value
The estimated current value of the vacant Talmud Torah school site is $1,900,000. The projected
market value of the property upon completion of the proposed redevelopment project is
$16,643,850. This is a ratio of nearly 1:9 which is a significant increase in tax base.
Additionally, the project would generate approximately $201,294 annually in local taxes. Given
that the current property is tax exempt, all of the taxes paid by the proposed redevelopment
would be new taxes.
Classification of the District
The type of TIF district proposed for the subject project is a Housing TIF District. The proposed
District meets statutory criteria for establishment of a Housing TIF District based on the
following findings of fact:
• The District consists of one parcel.
• The development will consist of approximately 122 senior, limited equity cooperative
housing units.
• At least 95% of the units assisted with tax increment will be occupied with persons at
100% of median income for a family of two or less and 115% of median income for
families of three or more (rental housing would have stricter income limitations). Median
income under this provision is the greater of the statewide median or the county median.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 3
For Hennepin County, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),
the median the median income is $76,400 and the statewide median is $66,000 (year
2004).
• At least 95% of the total fair market value of the planned improvements will be housing
intended for occupancy by low and moderate income persons.
Duration of the District
As authorized by statute, the duration of housing districts is 25 years after receipt of the first
increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The City expects receipt of the first
full tax increment in 2006. Thus, it is estimated that the District would terminate after 2031, or
when the TIF plan is satisfied. The EDA and City have the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date. Based on the request by the developer, it is estimated the TIF required
for the project will be paid off in approximately 9 years.
Fiscal Disparities Election
The proposed development will not contain any commercial/industrial property. Therefore, the
fiscal disparities provision does not apply to the proposed District.
Recommendation
The proposed TIF Plan and accompanying resolution has been prepared by the EDA’s financial
and legal consultants, in consultation with staff. Staff recommends approval of the attached
resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Aquila Commons TIF
District as presented.
Attachments:
• Resolution
• TIF Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 04-092
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND ESTABLISHING THE AQUILA COMMONS TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the City of St. Louis Park (the
"EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted a Redevelopment
Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt a Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and establish the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District (the
"District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the
Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the
''Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans
to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but
not limited to, notification of County of Hennepin and Independent School District No. 283
having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written
comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing
upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include
environmental studies, data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis
for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms,
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 5
ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of
this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public
interest and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby
incorporated herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is a "housing district" under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 11.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan, that the Plans conform to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will
afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. Although it is not anticipated that the District will contain commercial/industrial
property, the City elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from inside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act.
The Plans will facilitate the development of a site that is occupied by a former school building,
which has been vacant for more than one year. The re-use of the site will create 122 units of
limited equity cooperative housing for seniors, which will improve the tax base and improve the
general economy of the State, and thereby serves a public purpose.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 6
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Coordinator.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County (the "Auditor") is requested to certify the
original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year
thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the
City is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the Auditor in such form and
content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for
which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the
adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file
a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
_________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________ (Seal)
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 04-092
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District is a housing district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11.
The District consists of one parcel. The development will consist of approximately 122
senior, limited equity cooperative housing units. At least 95% of the units assisted with tax
increment will be occupied with persons at 100% of median income for a family of two or
less and 115% of median income for families of three or more (rental housing would have
stricter income limitations). Median income under this provision is the greater of the
statewide median or the county median. For Hennepin County, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the median the median income is $76,400 and the
statewide median is $66,000 (year 2004). The market value of non-assisted housing or
commercial property will be less than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned
improvements. Appendix E of the TIF Plan contains background for the above finding.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase
in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the
present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Aquila
Commons Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The site
is occupied by a former school building that has been vacant for more than one year. The
proposed development—122 units of limited equity cooperative housing for seniors—will
require demolition and clearance of the site. Further, based on analysis of the developer's
pro forma and the Maxfield Research study (See Subsection 2-16 of the TIF Plan), the City
has determined that a gap of over $1,000,000 needs to be filled through tax increment in
order to make the proposed development financially feasible. The City, therefore, believes
the proposed housing facility is not likely to occur without the assistance described in this
TIF Plan (See Appendix E of the TIF Plan).
While the property could be sold to another developer for some other use, these scenarios
are not feasible in the market due to various constraints. First, adaptive reuse of the building
would produce far less market value than the proposed 122-unit housing facility. Second,
commercial development is not feasible due to inadequate market location and it is unlikely
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 8
that spot zoning would be supported (changing the zoning to commercial for only one
parcel) due to the surrounding land uses, which are predominately single-family homes.
Third, a higher valued senior cooperative would not be feasible based upon research
completed by Maxfield Research Inc. The surrounding target market of moderate income
seniors would be unable to afford to purchase a higher valued unit due to the increased cost
for entry share cost and ongoing monthly fees (maintenance and mortgage). This would
decrease the economic attractiveness of the development to the intended target market and
would reduce demand for the cooperative product since some households would decide they
would not be able to afford the entry share costs and have sufficient funds remaining to
support the ongoing monthly fees. Fourth, according to Maxfield Research, a general
occupancy condominium development would not be feasible since the target market
generally consists of younger, first-time home buyers and older senior households. Both of
these markets are price sensitive... younger buyers have limited funds for down payment and
seniors that are selling their major asset (their home), want to spend on par or less than the
equity they receive from selling their home. Finally, higher end condominium units are
unlikely due to the value of the existing housing in the surrounding neighborhood. Maxfield
Research completed a review of the market area and determined that the proposed pricing
for the cooperative units of $130,000 - $200,000 was reflective of the market in this area of
the City. The property is located in an area of modest home values and as such, the
development of even a middle-priced condominium development would exceed the values
of the single-family homes in the neighborhood and most likely would not be supported due
to lack of neighborhood amenities, etc. In addition, there are over 500 condominium units
in the pipeline for St. Louis Park at various locations within the City. All of these
developments are proposing to offer product priced well above the $180,000 price point.
These developments are situated in locations with amenity value to support these higher
prices, unlike this location.
Ehlers & Associates completed an analysis of the development proforma based upon this
information and research and the proposed development costs provided by the developer. It
was determined that a gap of over $1,000,000 existed to make the project financially
feasible for the developer, which means that the developer would need to purchase the land
for under the proposed $1,900,000 and receive no development fee. Given that the Assessor
has placed a value on the land of $1,947,000 and the school had an appraisal completed two
years ago that showed a value of $2,750,000, it is unlikely that the land cost will be lowered
in the near future for this proposed housing development or another housing development.
It should be noted that any alternative redevelopment scenario faces the same high land cost
and demolition/clearance costs faced by the proposed developer, and in the City's
experience such properties have not been redeveloped in St. Louis Park without significant
public assistance.
The City has required the developer to abide by a "look back" provision, which measures
the actual sales price of the units and costs of construction versus the project revenues and
costs. If the developer achieves a higher than market rate return, the amount of TIF
assistance will be reduced.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6b - Aquila Commons TIF District
Page 9
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District
will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to
occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to
$23,125,250.
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration
of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $3,431,932. (See
Appendix F in the TIF Plan)
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur,
the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market
value increase greater than $19,693,318 (the amount in clause b less the amount
in clause c) without tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Aquila Commons Tax Increment
Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the
municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to
the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Aquila Commons Tax Increment
Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by
private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in the development of a vacated former
school site, preserve and enhance the tax base, and provide an impetus for residential
development, which is desirable and necessary for increased population and an increased
need for life-cyc le housing within the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 1
6c. Public hearing for petition of Rottlund Homes to vacate West 37th Street between
Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and
east of Alabama Avenue. Request of Rottlund Homes for a final PUD and plat
for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W 37th Street, 5912
Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford Street
to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units, and 80 senior condo
units and with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for private street width
and a PUD modification for building height.
Case Nos. 03-75-VAC, 03-73-PUD, 03-74-S,
Recommended
Action:
ü Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first
reading of ordinance to vacate West 37th Street between
Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north
of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue and set
second reading for August 16, 2004.
ü Motion to approve resolution for Final PUD with
conditions.
ü Motion to approve resolution for Final plat with
conditions.
Background:
In 2001 Quadion Corp. closed their manufacturing facility at 3630 Wooddale Avenue.
Quadion has found a new location outside of St. Louis Park, and has vacated the three-
story administrative office building at 5957 37th Street and the research facilities on the
east side of Wooddale Avenue. Rottlund Homes purchased all of Quadion’s property
holdings in this location and has purchase agreements with two residential property
owner at 5912 and 5920 Oxford Street. (At the time City C ouncil was considering the
preliminary PUD and plat on March 22, 2004, Rottlund was still negotiating with these
two residential property owners.)
On August 4, 2003, the City Council approved a request to reguide the Quadion (now
Rottlund) properties from industrial to medium density residential and office on the west
side of Wooddale Avenue and to Commercial Mixed-Use and Park on the east side of
Wooddale Avenue. The Council also approved a rezoning of the property consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. These actions are consistent with the Elmwood Area Land Use,
Transit, & Transportation Study concept plan and planning principles for the Elmwood
Area that was completed in January 2003 and formally accepted by the City Council on
February 18, 2003.
Following the reguiding and rezoning, Rottlund Homes submitted an application for a
preliminary PUD and plat for property on the west side of Wooddale Avenue along with
a petition to vacate West 37th Street and the alley north of the single family homes on
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 2
Oxford Street. The application involved two alternative plans: Alternative 1 included
four residential properties on the north side of Oxford Street (two of which Quadion did
not own) and Alternative 2 excluded these four properties. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on February 18, 2004, to consider both Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 plans. Several residents spoke and indicated to the Planning Commission
that they would be satisfied with either alternative, although there was some preference
for Alternative 1. The Planning Commission indicated a strong preference for
Alternative 1 and recommended approval of Alternative 1. The Planning Commission
also recommended approval of Alternative 2 in case the ownership issues could not be
worked out and directed staff to prepare conditions of approval for Alternative 2 based
upon discussions during the meeting.
On March 22, 2004, after discussing the preliminary applications at a study session the
previous week, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD/Plat for Alternative 1
and, under certain circumstances, Alternative 2.
Subsequently, Rottlund entered into a purchase agreement with the remaining two
residential properties, and has submitted a Final PUD and Plat that represents the
preliminary Alternative 1 (all property bounded by Wooddale Avenue, Oxford Street,
Alabama Avenue, and W 36th street) plan. Also, subsequent to the Preliminary PUD and
Plat approval, the original plan to sell the office building and the senior housing lot to
Sherman & Associates fell through. On July 7, 2004, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the Final PUD and Plat and recommended approval of same with
conditions.
The developer has conducted a number of neighborhood meetings to review their plans
and architectural renderings and to answer questions regarding the proposal. Reports
from these meetings appear to indicate that the neighborhood is supportive of the plans.
Current Zoning:
R4 – Multi-Family Residential
RC – Multi-Family Residential
All properties west of Wooddale, except existing
office building have been zoned R4.
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
OXFORD ST
36TH ST W
37TH ST WRC
MXR4
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 3
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: RM—Residential Medium Density
O—Office
Current Land Use Office, Vacant Manufacturing
Building, Parking Lot, Single
Family, 2-Family
Proposed Land Use Office (21,250 sq. ft.)
Townhouse (78)
Condominium Lofts (66)
Senior Condominiums (80)
Proposed Total Residential 224
Units
Development Area 362,230 sq. ft.
(8.31 ac.)
Proposed Density 30.5 units/acre
Proposed Parking 429 spaces
Usable Open Space 50,575 sq. ft.
Designed Outdoor About 10%
Recreation Area
Building Heights
Maximum Allowed: 40 feet
Proposed:
Condominium Lofts* 3-story (approx. 50 feet)
Age-restricted (sr) Condominiums** 4-story (approx. 56 feet)
* 3-Story over parking level; PUD modifications requested
**4-Story over parking level; PUD modifications requested
Proposal:
The developer is proposing to retain the 3-story office building on Alabama Avenue and
to redevelop the remaining properties west of Wooddale Avenue with townhouses,
condos, and age-restricted condos (this is a change from the original intent to develop
senior rental). The site layout shows townhouses with underground parking on the
southern third of the site oriented both toward Oxford Street and a private interior drive.
On the middle third of the site along Wooddale Avenue is a proposed 66-unit
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 4
condominium building (3-story over parking garage) and proposed for the northern
portion adjacent to West 36th Street is an 80-unit senior condominium building (4-story
over parking garage).
The applicant is proposing to vacate the portion of West 37th Street between Alabama and
Wooddale Avenue and also an alley abutting the four residential properties on the north
side of Oxford. These will be replaced with two private streets that provide access to the
site, one serving the office and townhouses and the other serving the office building,
condominium building and the age-restricted (senior) condominium building.
Usable open space is provided in a large area in the center of the site that would meet the
newly proposed “designed outdoor recreation area” standard and is discussed below. A
required storm water retention pond is located adjacent to Oxford Street across from the
park. This pond was the subject of discussion during the preliminary PUD and plat
public hearing and City Council review and will be discussed below.
The Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, & Transportation Study indicated a need for
additional right of way on Wooddale Avenue in order to expand it to a 4-lane divided
boulevard. A preliminary cross section has been developed that identifies the need for at
least a 90-foot right of way between Oxford Street and West 36th Street. The proposed
preliminary plat shows a dedication of additional Wooddale Avenue right-of-way on the
west side of Wooddale, including extra right of way (in excess of 90 feet) to
accommodate a right turn lane into the proposed development on the north end. This will
be discussed further below.
East side of Wooddale:
The former Quadion properties located east of Wooddale Avenue have been reguided for
Park and Mixed-Use and will be redeveloped at a later date. The developer has stated
that these buildings will both be demolished, and will no longer require the parking that
will be lost with their redevelopment project on the west side of Wooddale.
Issues:
ü Is the proposed final PUD and plat in conformance with the preliminary
PUD and plat approval?
ü Does the requested height modification meet the requirements of the PUD?
ü Does the proposal meet other submission requirements for a final PUD and
plat?
ü Is there an existing or future public need for West 37th Street and the alley?
ü Does the proposed plat meet the design standards of the subdivision
ordinance?
Issue Analysis:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 5
§ Is the proposed final PUD and plat in conformance with the preliminary PUD
and plat approval?
The resolution approved 80 senior residential units, 66 condominiums and 78 townhomes
at the location described with a 2% increase to density, a 10% decrease to parking, and a
5-foot increase to the senior and condominium building heights. The final PUD is
seeking basically the same residential unit mix, but instead of 80 senior rental units, the
developer is proposing 80 senior condominium units. This is consistent with the
resolution of approval. The resolution stated that if the developer needed an additional
height modification via PUD, it would require another public hearing at the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 7, 2004, and
recommended a PUD modification to allow a building height of 56 feet for the senior
condominium building and 50 feet for the condominium loft building.
The major issues identified by the Preliminary PUD and plat were:
ü Stormwater pond design.
ü Building elevations along Wooddale Avenue.
ü Building height of the condominium buildings.
Stormwater pond design.
The resolution approving the Preliminary PUD required that the developer “Show a good
faith effort to resolve concerns relating to stormwater design by submitting an alternative
design which may include below-ground vault storage or submitting an analysis of why
alternative designs are not feasible.” The developer has stated that below-ground vault
storage would not reduce the high water elevations in the pond nor would it allow for the
under-building garage floor elevations in the condo buildings to be lowered (thus
improving the relationship of the building and the street along Wooddale Avenue to meet
the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan). The stormwater calculations submitted as
part of the final PUD do show increased water levels in the pond over what was
submitted in the preliminary PUD and this did require an adjustment of the grading plan
south of the pond area.
The developer has submitted plans that show a two-tiered retaining wall along the north
side of the pond and has provided a landscape plan that shows plantings to minimize the
impact of the retaining walls around the pond. (See attached details.)
Building elevations along 36 St/Wooddale Avenue.
The resolution approving the Preliminary PUD required that building elevations for the
senior building show a major entrance along West 36th Street. The building elevation is
showing an entrance on Wooddale Avenue and an outdoor terrace with access from West
36th Street. Staff and the Planning Commission find that this meets the intent of this
requirement.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 6
The resolution also required building elevations for the condo lofts building to show
either individual entrances to first floor units or a major (resident/visitor) entrance on
Wooddale Avenue and any exposed garage levels of buildings to include a superior
exterior design displaying 100% Class 1 building materials with window openings
similar to those proposed for the first floor level. The elevations do show an entrance on
Wooddale Avenue and Class 1 building materials (brick). The developer is requesting
that the requirement for window openings be waived because the architectural detail of
the building, berming, and proposed landscaping provide visual interest at the pedestrian
level. The developer has provided a cross section to show the relationship of the
building to the pedestrian realm that staff and the Planning Commission have found
acceptable. (See attached cross section.)
Building height of the condominium buildings.
The resolution approving the Preliminary PUD approved a 5-foot building height
modification for the condominium buildings. It also stated that the Final PUD
application would require a public hearing at the Planning Commission if greater height
modifications were being sought. The developer is seeking an additional height
modification for the condominium buildings. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing for the Final PUD on July 7, and recommended approval of the additional height
modification. This is be discussed in more detail below.
• Does the requested height modification meet the requirements of the PUD?
The proposal for new townhouse, condominium, and senior condominium units is
permitted by conditional use permit in the R4—Multi-family Residential zoning district
at densities of up to 30 units per acre. The existing office building is a permitted use in
the RC—Multi-Family Residential District. The applicant has submitted an application
for a PUD for the site. The PUD generally allows the entire site to be reviewed as if it
were a single parcel for determining density, parking, and usable open space. The PUD
process allows for certain modifications to district standards. Parking, density, and a 5-
foot height modification were approved during the preliminary PUD process. A 40-foot
building height is permitted outright in the R4 District. The applicant is seeking
additional modifications to building height to allow a 50-foot height for the loft
condominium building and a 56-foot height for the senior condominium building. The
loft condominium is proposed to be 3 stories over parking and the senior condominium
building is proposed to be 4-stories over parking. The building heights are measured
from the curb levels of adjacent public streets (Wooddale and West 36th Street), and the
height is less when measured from ground level from the interior of the site.
Generally, the PUD process requires that certain findings are met to justify approval of a
PUD and/or PUD modifications. For instance, the City Council must find that the
requested modifications “bear a demonstrable relationship to, and are consistent with, the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 7
goals and policies of the comprehensive plan” and the applicant can show that the effect
of the modification “will be eliminated by screening landscaping, superior site and
building design and other features related to planning, design and construction.”
The City Council did adopt into the Comprehensive Plan design principles of the
Elmwood Study. These include strong attention to pedestrian ways and the public realm.
Also, the Comprehensive Plan Livable Communities chapter goals state that buildings
should be located in such a manner that there is a strong relationship with a walkable
public realm.
The resolution approving the preliminary PUD addressed specific requirements to meet
these goals. The developer is seeking additional height modifications and the City
Council must find that the following provisions are being met.
• Building and site design. The city council shall find that the quality of building
and site design proposed by the PUD plan will substantially enhance aesthetics of
the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the comprehensive plan
before a PUD plan may be approved.
Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council agreed that the proposed
site plan layout is well thought out, functions well, and implements goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of internal circulation, both vehicle
and pedestrian, and that the size and location of the open space is central to the
development and is accessible through an internal sidewalk system. The location
of the buildings relative to the surrounding streets has potential to provide for a
desirable streetscape and an asset for the future project residents and larger
neighborhood. The applicant has presented building elevations that reflect large
windows and 60% class I materials as required. The applicant has also submitted
a cross section showing the vertical relationship of the building to the public
sidewalk along Wooddale Avenue.
• Chapter R, Livable Communities Goal E states “Facilitate building locations
and design which emphasizes a relationship with a walkable public realm.
Support designs which emphasizes architecture, art, and pedestrian and transit
connections.”
As a condition of approval, staff and the Planning Commission recommend
that in order to meet this requirement, that the developer contribute to a public
art fund an amount equal to $225 per dwelling unit. It is then recommended
that public art be incorporated into the future pocket park that has been
identified for the southeast corner of Wooddale Avenue and West 36th Street
in the Elmwood Study and the Comprehensive Plan.
• The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 8
all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically
pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
The site plan shows an internal coherence, interconnected sidewalks and central
open space accessible to all residents. Staff and the Planning Commission find
that the site plan meets the standards for the PUD.
The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the
potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential
adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
Also see above for comments related to site plan. Within close proximity to this
development is a future transit station and light rail corridor, a future mixed-use
streetscape along W. 36th Street, existing regional and city trails that connect the
area with Wolfe Park, and the park system in Minneapolis. The developer has
amended the building elevations to provide building access from Wooddale
Avenue. This helps to deemphasize the internal focus of the condo buildings and
improves pedestrian access.
The design shall take into account any modifications of chapter requirements
permitted by subsection (d) of this section and provide appropriate solutions to
eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the
PUD.
In addition to general requirements, the zoning ordinance also states that specific findings
are made to justify PUD modifications. These are as follows:
Modifications. The applicant for a PUD seeking modifications as permitted in table 36-
367A is required to demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the
following objectives:
a. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project;
Staff and the Planning Commission believe the proposed pedestrian
facilities meet this criterion.
b. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities;
The project is located in close proximity to a future transit station for light
rail as well as to bus stops for existing bus routes. The modifications to
add building entrances to the condo buildings along Wooddale Avenue
promote these linkages. The developer is also providing sidewalks around
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 9
all sides of the development that will provide improved pedestrian access
to transit for the residential community to the south and west of the
development.
c. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing;
N/A.
d. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as
part of the PUD plan;
NA. However, live-work opportunities would result since the existing
office building is proposed to remain.
e. Provide public plazas and usable open space which exceeds minimum
chapter requirements; and
The proposed open space exceeds slightly reductions allowed for park
dedication.
f. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of
public art.
The developer is willing to contribute an amount equal to $225 per
dwelling unit to fund future public art improvements. As stated earlier,
public art is suggested to be installed at the future pocket part that will be
developed at the southeast corner of Wooddale Avenue and West 36th
Street.
• Is there an existing or future public need for West 37th Street and the alley?
The applicant is proposing to vacate West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and
Wooddale Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to vacate an existing alley just north
of the four residential properties along Oxford Street. These roadways will be replaced
with private roads that will serve the proposed development. Most of existing water main
that is located within West 37th Street will be removed. A portion of it will be retained
within an easement to serve the existing office building. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council find no public need and approve the ordinance
vacating the street and alley.
• Does the proposed final plat meet the design standards of the subdivision
ordinance?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 10
Lots: The preliminary plat proposal had 8 lots, 1 for each building plus a
common lot for the townhouse portion of the development. The proposed final
plat also shows 8 lots, but the common lot (Outlot A) covers all of the common
area. The City Attorney has reviewed the changes and does not believe that the
changes are significant enough to require a new public hearing and a submittal of
a revised preliminary plat
Streets: The developer is proposing two private streets that cross the site east to
west connecting from Alabama to Wooddale. The northern street has right in,
right out access at Wooddale only because of its close proximity to the
intersection of Wooddale and W. 36th Street.
The proposed internal private streets are 28 feet wide and have parking on one
side. The subdivision ordinance requires a minimum of a 29-foot roadway
section where parking is located on one side. Public Works and the Fire
Department do not object to the 28-foot proposal, but it will require a variance
from the Subdivision Code. The applicant is requesting a variance from the
subdivision design standards as part of the final PUD and plat application. Staff
and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance.
Sidewalks and Trails: In addition to the sidewalks required along the internal
private streets, sidewalks with 6-foot boulevards will also be required around the
periphery of the development. The sidewalks along Alabama and W 36 Street
(collector streets) are required to be 6 feet in width and the sidewalk along Oxford
Street (local street) is required to be 5 feet in width. Different sidewalks widths
are required according to the type of roadway designation. The site plan does
show required sidewalks and trails and boulevards. The existing and proposed
sidewalks along Alabama and West 36th Street are partially on private property.
The resolution approving the preliminary PUD and plat requires that easements be
granted to the City over all of the sidewalks that abut public streets.
The Comprehensive Trail and Sidewalk Plan indicates a sidewalk along the west
side of Wooddale Avenue. However, the recommendations of the Elmwood Area
Land Use, Transportation, and Transit Study indicate that a trail is more
appropriate in that location. The proposed site plan does show an 8-foot trail.
Since the Elmwood Study also recommends that Wooddale Avenue be upgraded
to a four lane with a center landscaped median, the developer is proposing to
construct a temporary trail at this time.
Erosion Control: The developer will be required to obtain an erosion control
permit from the City prior to any site work. The erosion control plan submitted
does not fully address the requirements of the permit or of the code. For instance,
it does not locate an erosion control fence on the north end. A more detailed plan
will be required with the application of the erosion control permit.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 11
Tree Removal: The developer has submitted a final tree removal plan that
indicates that 1,094 caliper inches of trees need to be replaced. Tree replacement
is required based upon a formula which compares total caliper inches of existing
trees with the total number proposed to be removed for private property and on a
caliper inch for caliper inch for public trees. If the developer is not able to
replace all required replacement trees on site due to space limitations, then the
developer may elect to either pay the City a cash in lieu of tree removal in the
amount of $90 per caliper inch or plant the remaining trees within parks or
boulevards in locations identified by the City. The proposed landscape plan
indicates that 768.5 caliper inches are being replaced on site. The developer will
be required to provide $29,295 cash in lieu of tree replacement. (A portion of this
amount will be held for planting boulevard trees along Wooddale Avenue after
this street is reconstructed, see Landscaping below.) The Environmental
Coordinator has recommended that elms that are proposed to be saved be treated
to prevent them from Dutch Elm disease. This provision was incorporated into
the association documents and has been addressed as a condition of approval.
Landscaping: The subdivision ordinance requires that landscaping be provided
in accordance with requirements of the zoning code. It also requires boulevard
trees to be planted between the sidewalk or trail and street (whether public or
private). The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that meets all of the
ordinance requirements, except that no trees are currently being proposed within
the boulevard along Wooddale Avenue. This is because these would be removed
when Wooddale Avenue is rebuilt. A portion of the cash-in-lieu of tree
replacement will be held in escrow to cover the cost of boulevard trees when the
street is reconstructed.
Easements: The subdivision ordinance requires utility and drainage easements at
least 10 feet in total width along all lot lines. Easements are also required over
the ponding area. The final plat shows a utility and drainage easement over the
entire Outlot A. The plans also indicate areas where the required public
sidewalks along Alabama and West 36th Street are on private property.
Easements will be required over all sidewalks that abut public streets.
Stormwater: The subdivision ordinance requires that issues related to storm
water are resolved as a condition of preliminary plat approval. There have been
changes to stormwater calculations based upon direction of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. Public Works has indicated that the final plans meet
stormwater requirements.
Park Dedication: For all subdivisions, park dedication is a requirement of the
platting process. The code requires for developments of over 10 units per acre,
that 20% of the land area, minus private roadways, be dedicated for parks. The
ordinance also states that the Park and Recreation Commission could recommend
cash in lieu of park and trail dedication at the rate of $900 per dwelling unit for
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 12
park dedication and $225 per dwelling unit for trail dedication. In this case the
Park and Recreation Commission met in January and recommended that the
developer pay cash in lieu of a land dedication. Park dedication based upon 224
units is $201,600. The trail dedication fee is $50,400.
Planning Contract: The subdivision ordinance requires that the developer and
City enter into a planning contractF prior to any work commencing on the site.
This requirement is a condition of final plat approval.
Other requirements: As part of the approval process, the developer is required to provide
copies of all of the condominium documents prior to City Council consideration of the
Final PUD. These have been provided and reviewed by the City Attorney. The City
Attorney has found them acceptable.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following:
ü First reading of the Ordinance to vacate West 37th Street between Alabama
Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and the alley north of Oxford Street and east of
Alabama Avenue.
ü Resolution approving Final PUD with a 16-foot increase to the building height for
the senior condominium building and a 10-foot increase to the building height for
the condominium loft building based on findings set forth above and subject to
conditions.
ü Resolution approving Final Plat with subdivision variance to allow private interior
street widths of 28 feet instead of the required 29 feet based on the findings set
forth above and subject to conditions.
Attachments: Aerial Photo (supplement)
Proposed Ordinance vacating West 37th Street and the alley
Proposed resolution approving the Final PUD
Proposed resolution approving the Final Plat.
Final Plat and PUD drawings (supplement)
Retaining Wall detail (supplement)
Cross section of building/street at Wooddale (supplement)
Planning Commission meeting excepts
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 13
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET AND ALLEY
WEST 37TH STREET BETWEEN WOODDALE AVENUE
AND ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH AND ALLEY NORTH
OF OXFORD STREET AND EAST OF ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the street and alley proposed to be vacated has been
duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published, in the St. Louis Park Sailor, on
July 22, 2004, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and
has determined that the street and alley is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for
the best interest of the public that said street and alley be vacated.
Section 2. The following described street and alley, as now dedicated and laid
out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
West 37th Street, between Wooddale Avenue and Alabama Avenue
and
Alley located at rear of 5912, 5916, 5920 and 5926 Oxford Street
reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in,
over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and
public utility purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this
ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles
as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 16, 2004
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 14
City Clerk City Attorney
03-75-VAC/res-ord
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 15
RESOLUTION NO. 04-093
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) WITH PUD MODIFICATIONS TO BUILDING HEIGHT, PARKING,
AND DENSITY UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY
ZONED R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
R-C MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
3630 WOODDALE AVENUE,
5951 and 5957 WEST 37TH STREET,
5912 OXFORD STREET,
5916 OXFORD STREET,
5920 OXFORD STREET,
and 5926 OXFORD STREET
(ELMWOOD VILLAGE)
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary PUD on March 22, 2004,
Resolution No. 04-044; and
WHEREAS, the resolution approved Alternative 1 development plan and also ap
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development
(PUD) was received on June 7, 2004 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
Final PUD at the meeting of July 7, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the Final PUD to be consistent with
the Preliminary PUD and recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 4-1 vote with
four members present voting in the affirmative and one member present voting opposed,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning
Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise
including comments in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. The Rottlund Company, Inc. with the consent of Bill Johnson, Don Johnson, LaVera
M. Johnson, and Leo Zaback has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 16
Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the R-4
Multi-Family Residential and R-C Multi-Family Residential districts located at 3630
Wooddale Avenue, 5951 and 5957 West 37th Street, 5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford
Street, 5920 Oxford Street, and 5926 Oxford Street for the legal description as follows,
to-wit:
Parcel 1:
Lots 6 and 7, Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, plus the south half of the vacated alley.
Abstract Land
Parcel 2:
Lots 22 to 35, both inclusive, Block 43, Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park, and the South Half of the vacated alley adjoining
said Lots, according to the recorded plats thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Abstract Land Parcel 3:
Lots 4 and 5, Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, according to
the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 18 to 21, inclusive, Block 43,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, and Lots 16 and 17, Block 43,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, except that part of said lots
lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the North
line of said Lot 17 distant 2.89 feet Easterly from the
Northwest corner of said Lot 17, to a point on the North line
of said Lot 16 distant 8.89 feet Southeasterly from the most
Northerly corner of said Lot 16, according to the plat thereof
on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The North Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 4 and 5,
Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, and Lots 14 to 21, inclusive,
Block 43, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to the
recorded plats thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 643802.
Parcel 4:
Lots 30 to 36 inclusive, and that part of the North Half of
the vacated alley adjoining Lots 30 to 36 inclusive, which
lies between the extensions across it of the West line of said
Lot 36 and the East line of Lot 30; Lots 44 to 57 inclusive,
and that part of the South Half of the vacated alley adjoining
Lots 44 to 57 inclusive, which lies between the extensions
across it of the West line of said Lot 44 and the East line of
Lot 57, all in Block 47, "rearrangement of St. Louis Park,"
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 17
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
All of the following described tract:
Lots 25 to 29 inclusive, and that part of the North Half of
the vacated alley adjoining Lots 25 to 29 inclusive, which
lies between the extensions across it of the West line of said
Lot 29 and the Southwesterly line of Wooddale Avenue, formerly
Pleasant Avenue; Lots 58 to 64 inclusive, and that part of the
South Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 58 to 64
inclusive, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park," which lies
between the extensions across it of the West line of said Lot
58 and the Southwesterly line of Wooddale Avenue, formerly
Pleasant Avenue, all in Block 47, "Rearrangement of St. Louis
Park," according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, except that part thereof which lies
Southeasterly, Easterly and Northeasterly of Line A described
as follows:
Line A: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 58, Block
47, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park; thence Easterly 090
degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds, assumed azimuth from North,
19.91 feet along the South line of said Block 47 to the point
of beginning of Line "A"; thence Northeasterly 142.20 feet on
a tangential curve concave to the North, radius 271.56 feet
and central angle 30 degrees 00 minutes 12 seconds; thence
Northerly 015 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds azimuth 26.39
feet; thence Northwesterly 330 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds
azimuth 81.21 feet; thence Northwesterly 157.07 feet on a
tangential curve concave to the Southwest, radius 914.93 feet
and central angle 9 degrees 50 minutes 10 seconds; thence
Northwesterly 320 degrees 41 minutes 31 seconds azimuth 100
feet, tangent to said curve and there terminating.
Lot 7, and that part of the North Half of the vacated alley
adjoining Lot 7, Block 47, "St. Louis Park Centre", lying
between the extensions across it of the East line of said Lot
7 and the West line of Lot 44, Block 47, "Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park";
Lots 8 to 11 inclusive:
All in Block 47, "St. Louis Centre", according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 37, 38 and 39, and that part of the North Half of the
vacated alley adjoining Lots 37, 38 and 39, Block 47,
"Rearrangement of St. Louis Park", which lies between the
extensions across it of the West line of said Lot 39 and the
East line of Lot 37, Block 47;
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 18
All in "Rearrangement for St. Louis Park", according to the
recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 643803.
Parcel 5:
Lots 14 and 15, Block 47, St. Louis Park Centre, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
Abstract Land
Parcel 6:
Lots 40 through 43, Block 47, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 03-73-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of
the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic
improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously
depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the
proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with
the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 03-73-PUD are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved with
modification to building heights to allow a 50 foot high three-story Condominium Loft
building and a 56 foot high four-story age-restricted (senior) condominium building
based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final
PUD official exhibits.
2. The Preliminary PUD exhibits shall be amended prior to signing either
preliminary or final PUD exhibits to accurately reflect the resolution approving
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 19
the preliminary PUD and shall be subject to approved plan changes through the
final PUD process.
3. Documents showing proposed cross-easements within the development including
parking easements between the office use and residential uses and condominium
documents. These document shall be approved by the City Attorney and found to
be in accordance with subdivision requirements. The condominium documents
shall include a clause that states the condominium association agrees to provide
regular injections to any Elm trees that are shown as remaining on the tree
removal and landscape plans.
4. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
requirements.
5. Prior to the City signing the Final Plat the applicant shall comply with the
following requirements:
a. Sign assent form and Final PUD and Plat official exhibits.
b. Submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of $1000 to insure that a mylar copy of the final plat is
provided.
c. A planning contract shall be executed between the developer and the City,
which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance,
repair and cleaning of public streets, construction conditions, off site
infrastructure improvements and cost share formulas, off-site parking, and
criteria for administrative amendments to the PUD.
d. Provide a 12-foot easement for additional right of way along the east side
of Wooddale Avenue.
e. Provide an easement for the required sidewalks along Alabama Avenue
South and West 36th Street.
f. The City Council shall adopt an ordinance vacating that portion of West
37th Street between Wooddale Avenue and Alabama Avenue South and
the alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue South.
g. Submit payment for cash in lieu of park dedication in the amount of $900
per dwelling unit and trail dedication in the amount of $225 per dwelling
unit.
h. Submit payment for public art in the amount of $225 per dwelling unit.
6. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
c. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility
permits and other permits required by the City, which may impose
additional conditions.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 20
d. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of sidewalk installation and
repair/cleaning of public streets, and tree replacement.
e. Submit a check in the amount equal to $90 per caliper inch of the
difference between required tree replacement and the actual replacement
as reflected by the final landscape plan.
f. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
g. Provide to the city a mylar of the final plat along with proof of filing same
with the county.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional
requirements, the developer shall comply with the following:
a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during
construction.
b. The applicant shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the trail
and sidewalk easements.
c. Building materials samples shall be submitted to and approved by City.
d. A lighting plan and photometrics and irrigation plan meeting the ordinance
regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the community
development department.
8. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on
weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all
times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
9. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an
administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
10. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require
execution of a planning contract as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D.
The planning contract shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to
execute the planning contract.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of
the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 21
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
City Mana ger Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
03-73-PUDfinal/res-ord/2003
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 22
RESOLUTION NO. 04-094
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT WITH VARIANCE FROM
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR PRIVATE STREET WIDTH
ELMWOOD VILLAGE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. The Rottlund Company, with the consent of Bill Johnson, Don Johnson,
LaVera M. Johnson, and Leo Zaback owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be
platted as Elmwood Village has submitted an application for approval of final plat of said
subdivision with variance in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis
Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with
the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota
and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Parcel 1:
Lots 6 and 7, Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, plus the south half of the adjacent vacated
alley.
Abstract Land
Parcel 2:
Lots 22 to 35, both inclusive, Block 43, Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park, and the South Half of the vacated alley adjoining
said Lots, according to the recorded plats thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Abstract Land Parcel 3:
Lots 4 and 5, Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, according to
the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 18 to 21, inclusive, Block 43,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, and Lots 16 and 17, Block 43,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, except that part of said lots
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 23
lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the North
line of said Lot 17 distant 2.89 feet Easterly from the
Northwest corner of said Lot 17, to a point on the North line
of said Lot 16 distant 8.89 feet Southeasterly from the most
Northerly corner of said Lot 16, according to the plat thereof
on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The North Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 4 and 5,
Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, and Lots 14 to 21, inclusive,
Block 43, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to the
recorded plats thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 643802.
Parcel 4:
Lots 30 to 36 inclusive, and that part of the North Half of
the vacated alley adjoining Lots 30 to 36 inclusive, which
lies between the extensions across it of the West line of said
Lot 36 and the East line of Lot 30; Lots 44 to 57 inclusive,
and that part of the South Half of the vacated alley adjoining
Lots 44 to 57 inclusive, which lies between the extensions
across it of the West line of said Lot 44 and the East line of
Lot 57, all in Block 47, "rearrangement of St. Louis Park,"
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
All of the following described tract:
Lots 25 to 29 inclusive, and that part of the North Half of
the vacated alley adjoining Lots 25 to 29 inclusive, which
lies between the extensions across it of the West line of said
Lot 29 and the Southwesterly line of Wooddale Avenue, formerly
Pleasant Avenue; Lots 58 to 64 inclusive, and that part of the
South Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 58 to 64
inclusive, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park," which lies
between the extensions across it of the West line of said Lot
58 and the Southwesterly line of Wooddale Avenue, formerly
Pleasant Avenue, all in Block 47, "Rearrangement of St. Louis
Park," according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, except that part thereof which lies
Southeasterly, Easterly and Northeasterly of Line A described
as follows:
Line A: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 58, Block
47, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park; thence Easterly 090
degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds, assumed azimuth from North,
19.91 feet along the South line of said Block 47 to the point
of beginning of Line "A"; thence Northeasterly 142.20 feet on
a tangential curve concave to the North, radius 271.56 feet
and central angle 30 degrees 00 minutes 12 seconds; thence
Northerly 015 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds azimuth 26.39
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 24
feet; thence Northwesterly 330 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds
azimuth 81.21 feet; thence Northwesterly 157.07 feet on a
tangential curve concave to the Southwest, radius 914.93 feet
and central angle 9 degrees 50 minutes 10 seconds; thence
Northwesterly 320 degrees 41 minutes 31 seconds azimuth 100
feet, tangent to said curve and there terminating.
Lot 7, and that part of the North Half of the vacated alley
adjoining Lot 7, Block 47, "St. Louis Park Centre", lying
between the extensions across it of the East line of said Lot
7 and the West line of Lot 44, Block 47, "Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park";
Lots 8 to 11 inclusive:
All in Block 47, "St. Louis Centre", according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 37, 38 and 39, and that part of the North Half of the
vacated alley adjoining Lots 37, 38 and 39, Block 47,
"Rearrangement of St. Louis Park", which lies between the
extensions across it of the West line of said Lot 39 and the
East line of Lot 37, Block 47;
All in "Rearrangement for St. Louis Park", according to the
recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 643803.
Parcel 5:
Lots 14 and 15, Block 47, St. Louis Park Centre, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
Abstract Land
Parcel 6:
Lots 40 through 43, Block 47, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Elmwood Village with variance from
the subdivision ordinance to reduce the private street width from 29 feet to 28 feet
is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity
with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and
the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
a. Drainage and utility easements shall be located over the entire
Outlot A.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 25
b. Approval of the Final Plat is subject to the conditions of Elmwood
Village PUD approval, the planning contract, the development agreement
with the EDA, and requirements of other agencies including the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
c. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay
an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this
approval.
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City
Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of
this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant
herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all
contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the
certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of
the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk,
as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall
be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City
officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be
placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of
the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
03-74-S final/res-ord/2003
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 26
Excerpts
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
July 7, 2004
B. Case Nos. 03-73-PUD and 03-74-S--Request of Rottlund Homes for a
final PUD and plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave., 5951 and
5957 W. 37th Street, 5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford
Street, 5926 Oxford Street to construct 78 townhouse units, 66
condominium units, and 80 senior rental units and with a variance from
the subdivision ordinance for private street width and a PUD modification
for building height.
Ms. Erickson gave the staff report. She displayed the landscape plan, commenting that
because boulevard trees will not be put in at this time along Wooddale Avenue, an
escrow account will be created so that the trees will be put in later. She commented on
issues that came up at preliminary plat review regarding the design of the pond. She said
changes have been made to the design of the pond and the ultimate plan with landscaping
will be satisfactory.
Ms. Erickson discussed building heights.
Michael Noonan, V.P., Rottlund Co. spoke about the neighborhood process, saying it has
been very fruitful. He said that Rottlund Co. is satisfied that it can meet all of the
conditions proposed by staff.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about plans are for the existing office building.
Mr. Noonan said Rottlund’s desire has been to retain it on the site, rehab it and sell it to a
single user.
Chair Robertson wondered about the elevations of the town homes. He said it looks like
there is a potential for a bank of gas meters to be quite prominent. He asked for
assurance that plants will be in front of them. Mr. Noonan said the landscaping is fairly
lush around the edge, providing the ability to screen the utilities.
Commissioner Morris said in previous presentations the existing office was designated to
be used by the developer as a home office. He said he was originally opposed to the
office building staying on site, but the argument was made to the Commission by Mr.
Sherman that it would be their office space for on-site building and management.
Commissioner Morris said he was pointing out that often times when promises are made
to the Commission they are not fulfilled. He said he understood the economic needs of
the building, but still believes an office building should not be in the middle of this
residential development. Notwithstanding, he said he understands that circumstances
change.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 27
Mr. Noonan replied that originally Sherman and Associates proposed to do rental senior
housing and use the office as their office building. Sherman couldn’t get TIF support and
the end result is that Rottlund is doing the senior ownership housing and will sell the
office building.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Bob Sather, 3825 Inglewood, asked about price ranges, layout and garage details of the
townhomes.
Mr. Noonan replied that there are three product lines. The loft price is about $180,000.
Senior housing would be approximately $200-225,000. Townhouses would be
approximately $275-$280,000.
Commissioner Morris wanted to know if this was a TIF project, and if there is any
affordable housing. Mr. Noonan said TIF provided the ability to acquire two additional
houses on Oxford, but did not provide the ability to provide an affordable housing
component.
Chair Robertson commented that the loft price at $180,000 is very close to being what the
Met Council has recently classified as affordable.
Celia Anderson, 4146 Vernon, asked if the house at Wooddale and Oxford, one of the
oldest houses in St. Louis Park, would be remodeled or removed. Mr. Noonan responded
that the plans are to clear the site and incorporate the land into the development.
Commissioner Morris suggested that the Planning Commission may want to look into
having an historical preservation policy.
In response to a resident’s (unidentified) question about parking, Mr. Noonan said the
staff report outlines 425 parking spaces provided which is a combination of underground
and surface. He said Rottlund feels the parking is adequate and is suitable for the needs
and demographics of the residents. In response to the resident’s question about height
of the senior building, Mr. Noonan responded that the height of the senior building is
comparable to the office building including its mechanical penthouse. In response to the
resident’s question about street width variance, Ms. Erickson said the variance to lower
the width from 29’ to 28’ feet, which was requested due to parking on one side of the
street, was approved by the City’s Fire and Police departments. The Public Works Dept.
is also comfortable with the proposed width.
Chair Robertson said he wanted to clarify that visually the senior building mass seems a
little bit taller than the office building. Mr. Noonan said that is true, due to the mass.
Janice Uhde, 3811 Zarthan Ave South, asked about construction dates.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 28
Mr. Noonan said the expectation is an 8-9 week grading and utility job. Rottlund hopes
to start the first townhouse units in October or early November. The southern portion
would be finished in a 2006 time frame. Construction of the two condo buildings should
start in April 2005. Mr. Noonan said Rottlund hopes all construction would be finished
by mid-2006, subject to weather, labor conditions, and material shortages. He added that
Rottlund is very mindful of noise regulations in St. Louis Park, and they will be
respectful of the neighborhood.
Patty Diamond, 3761 Alabama, asked about property values in the surrounding area.
She asked if there are any plans for retail construction.
Mr. Noonan said there is no retail plan for this block. He mentioned that Rottlund has
thought about a plan for mixed use on the east side of Wooddale (2 acre parcel which
fronts Wooddale). Regarding property values, Mr. Noonan said typically new
development does not negatively impact property values, but only supports the
neighborhood and solidifies property values.
John Wheeler, 3761 Alabama, asked the Commission if they had given any consideration
to making any enhancements to Center Park, across the street from the development. He
asked if any consideration had been given to sustainable building techniques. He asked
for explanation of pedestrian walkways through the site.
Ms. Erickson said Center Park is on the City CIP for 2005 improvements. Mr. Noonan
said that sidewalks and trails provide internal connections to the site. They are also
enhancing the sidewalk structures around the site. A full complement of sidewalks will
be provided on Alabama, Oxford and on 36th. A temporary trail along Wooddale will be
constructed which will be replaced with a permanent trail once Wooddale construction
takes place. He said that if sustainable building techniques meet the energy code and
the prescriptions set forth by the state, Rottlund will follow them. He said they are
looking constantly to enhance the efficiency of their buildings in terms of energy use as
well as conservation of renewable resources. He said the lumber used is generally
plantation-grown lumber and does have more of a green tinge than the old growth lumber
from Canada.
Chair Robertson discussed the park dedication fees from this project, which will go
towards improvements in the park.
Resident Barbara Reese, of the Historical Society, said she is pleased the Commission is
mindful of the history of St. Louis Park. She is a member of Union Congregational
Church, across from the development. Parking may be a problem but they are very glad
to have the new buildings coming in.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 6c - Rottlund Vacation and Final PUD & Plat
Page 29
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris to approve the final PUD and plat, subject
to the conditions outlined in the staff report. He also moved that a subdivision variance
be granted for the private interior street from 29’ to 28’, and moved approval of a PUD
modification for building height from 40’ to 50’ for the loft component and 55’ for the
senior housing component.
The motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Johnston-Madison opposed.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
7c. Contract for Private Redevelopment with The Rottlund Company
This report considers a resolution approving a redevelopment agreement with The
Rottlund Company for the redevelopment of the former Quadion Corporation
property between Oxford Street and 36th Street and west of Wooddale Avenue and
the construction of the Elmwood Village Housing Development.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Contract for Private
Redevelopment by and between the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority and The Rottlund Company.
Background
At the March 22, 2004 Council meeting, Rottlund Homes (the developer) received approval of its
Alternative 1 preliminary PUD and plat subject to conditions. Under Alternative 1, the developer
would purchase the entire 9.57-acre Quadion Corp site which includes property on both sides of
Wooddale Avenue and two houses along the north side of Oxford Street. Rottlund would
separately purchase the remaining two houses along the north side of Oxford Street. Rottlund
would then remove all the former Quadion buildings on both the east and west side of Wooddale
Ave, and all four houses along the north side of Oxford Street. In their place, Rottlund would
construct 78 townhomes, 63 loft condominiums, and 80 senior condominiums on the site west of
Wooddale. The four story office building at 5957 37th Street would remain and be resold by the
developer to another party.
Development Agreement
At the March 22, 2004 study session, the EDA/Council reviewed preliminary business points that
would be the basis for a Redevelopment Contract with Rottlund Homes. The business points
discussed and agreed to that evening served as the basis for the attached Redevelopment
Contract. The EDA is being asked to consider approval of the final development agreement
between the EDA and The Rottlund Company which calls for the acquisition and demolition of
the four houses on Oxford Street and the subsequent construction of 78 townhomes, 63 loft
condominiums, and 80 senior condominiums on the subject site west of Wooddale. A summary
of the Redevelopment Contract is attached. The authorizing resolution allows for modifications
to the Contract that do not alter the substance of the transaction without bringing the Contract
back to the EDA.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
Business Subsidy
The assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Agreement does not constitute a “business
subsidy” under the Business Subsidy Act (Section 116J.993, subd. 3) because the assistance is for
housing.
Recommendation
The EDA’s legal consultant, in consultation with staff, prepared the attached resolution
approving the Contract for Redevelopment with The Rottlund Company and recommends its
approval.
Attachments:
• Redevelopment Contract Summary
• Authorizing Resolution
• Redevelopment Contract
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
Summary of Redevelopment Contract
Between the SLP EDA and The Rottlund Company
The primary business points for the Redevelopment Agreement between the EDA and The
Rottlund Company are as follows:
• Both parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper acquired the Redevelopment Property,
including the Oxford Street Parcels, in reliance on and in anticipation of receiving tax increment
financing assistance in connection with redevelopment of that property, as recognized by the
City in approval of the preliminary plat and PUD on March 15, 2004. The EDA has no
obligation to acquire the Redevelopment Property.
• The Rottlund Company is responsible for any relocation benefits that may be payable in
connection with acquisition of any Parcel of the Redevelopment Property, including without
limitation the Oxford Street Parcels.
• The Rottlund Company will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA and the City from
any and all claims for benefits or payments arising out of the relocation or displacement of the
lessee or any person from the Redevelopment Property as a result of the implementation of the
Agreement.
• The Rottlund Company agrees to hold the EDA and the City harmless from any claim arising
out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the
Redevelopment Property (including any asbestos in the existing building).
• Assuming all statutory tests can be met, the City agrees to establish a Renewal and
Renovation Tax Increment Financing District to assist with such activities as site acquisition,
demolition, site preparation and asbestos removal associated with the subject redevelopment
as well as upgrading intersections and public utilities in the immediate area. The TIF note
would be structured on the following basis:
Ø Issue total: $790,000
Ø Type: Pay-as-you-go note
Ø Term: 4 years
Ø Interest Rate: 5.75%
Ø Admin Fee: 5%
Ø Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
• If the conditions for delivery of the Note are not met by December 31, 2004, the EDA may
terminate the Note and this Agreement by ten days written notice to the Redeveloper.
• Within 60 days after closing on Redeveloper’s sale to third parties of the final unit within the
completed Project, The Rottlund Company agrees to provide financial data to the EDA’s
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
consultant as may be necessary for the consultant to calculate the actual rate of return to the
Redeveloper. If, based on such review, the actual profit for the Redeveloper exceeds a 12%
rate of return, then 50 percent of excess amount of profit (the “Prepayment Amount”) will be
applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Note in accordance with the
terms of Section 5(b) of the Note. Such prepayment will be effective upon delivery to
Redeveloper of a written notice stating the amount of excess profit determined by the EDA in
accordance with this Section; however, the prepayment of the Note will be deemed to have
occurred as of the Final Closing Date.
• Both parties agree that any assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement is not
a “business subsidy” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993, subd. 3 because the
assistance is for housing.
• The Rottlund Company agrees to obtain all planning approvals necessary to construct the
Project, including without limitation a planned unit development and replat of the
Redevelopment Property.
• The Rottlund Company agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys
retained by the EDA in connection with the creation of the TIF District and the negotiation in
preparation of the Agreement and other incidental agreements and documents related to the
development contemplated hereunder. Upon termination of the Agreement, the Redeveloper
remains obligated for costs incurred through the effective date of termination.
• The Rottlund Company agrees to demolish the former Quadion Corporation buildings and
four houses along Oxford Street and construct 80 senior condominiums, 63 loft
condominiums, and 78 townhomes on the subject site west of Wooddale.
• The Rottlund Company agrees to complete the construction of the Project by June 30, 2007.
• Upon satisfactory completion of the project, the EDA will furnish the Redeveloper with a
Certificate of Completion.
• The Rottlund Company agrees to provide the EDA with proof of proper insurance.
• If The Rottlund Company requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the
EDA agrees to subordinate its rights under the Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage
securing construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a mutually-
approved subordination agreement.
• The Rottlund Company agrees not to transfer the agreement or the redevelopment property
(except to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Completion without the prior written
consent of the EDA.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
• The Rottlund Company agrees that the EDA and the City will not be held liable for any loss or
damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting
from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND
PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS $790,000 TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2004.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF
District") within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the
Development District. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the
TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines
that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its $790,000 Tax Increment
Revenue Note, Series 2004 (the "Note") for the purpose of financing certain public costs of the
Project.
1.02. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. The Authority hereby approves the
Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and the Rottlund Company, Inc. (the
“Agreement”), and authorizes the President and Executive Director to execute such Agreement in
substantially the form on file with the City, subject to modifications that do not alter the
substance of the transaction and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the
Agreement by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. The Authority hereby
delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be
delivered, in accordance with that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between the
Authority and The Rottlund Company, Inc. dated August 2, 2004 (the "Agreement"). The Note
shall be sold to The Rottlund Company, Inc. (the "Owner") and cannot be transferred or assigned
without the written consent of the Authority. The Note shall be dated the date of delivery thereof,
and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.75% per annum to the earlier of maturity or prepayment.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount and payment schedule adjusted as of the
date of issue:
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $790,000
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 2004
Date
Rate of Original Issue
5.75%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to The Rottlund Company, Inc. or registered
assigns (the "Owner"), the principal sum of $790,000 and to pay interest thereon at the rate of
5.75% per annum, as and to the extent set forth herein.
1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 2007 and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2012 ("Payment Dates") in
the amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and
including February 1, 2007 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each
year and added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each
Payment Date, 95% of the Tax Increment attributable to the Redevelopment Property and paid to
the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding the Payment Date, all as such terms
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
are defined in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and The Rottlund
Company, Inc. (“Redeveloper”) dated as of August 2, 2004 (the "Agreement").
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the
Authority to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall
not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the
extent of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance
of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2012.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Note, if the Certificate of Completion
for all Minimum Improvements has not been issued as of a Payment Date on which the Payment
would be sufficient to retire the outstanding principal and inters on the Note, such Payment will be
deferred (with interest at the stated rate herein) until the date of the Authority’s delivery of a
statement of excess profit as described in Section 5(b) hereof and Section 3.4 of the Agreement, and
is subject to adjustment in accordance with terms of those sections.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of
Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, on the next Payment Date after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event
of Default is not cured in a timely, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the
Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note
is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the excess
profit as described in Section 3.4 of the Agreement, fifty percent of such excess profit will be
deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the principal amount of this Note. Such
deemed prepayment is effective as of the Final Closing Date as defined in Section 3.4 of the
Agreement, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon request of the
Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding principal balance of
the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$790,000, issued to aid in financing certain public development costs and administrative costs of a
Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through
469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the "Resolution") duly adopted by the
Authority on August 2, 2004, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. This Note is
a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed
to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof,
including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political
subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs
incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the
taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the
payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.3(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required
by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
The Rottlund Company, Inc.
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be
payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform
the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be
as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not be
transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the
Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form
satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and
until such Payment Date.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu
of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until
delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to
the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note.
Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in
accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special "Bond Fund" to be used for no purpose
other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably
agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Tax Increment. Any Available Tax
Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's account for the TIF
District upon the payment of all principal and interest to be paid with respect to the Note.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon full execution of the
Agreement.
Adopted this 2nd day of August, 2004.
President
Executive Director
JAE-250266v1
SA285-71
Second Draft
July 28, 2004
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
Dated as of: ____________, 2004
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-9300
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions .................................................................................................................... 3
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority ................................................................................. 6
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper .................................................. 6
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs
Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property ............................................................................... 7
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................... 7
Section 3.3 Issuance of Note ........................................................................................................... 7
Section 3.4. Prepayment of Note from Net Profit ............................................................................ 8
Section 3.5. Business Subsidy Act ................................................................................................... 9
Section 3.6. Planning Approvals ...................................................................................................... 9
Section 3.7. Payment of Authority Costs ......................................................................................... 9
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ................................................................................... 10
Section 4.2. Construction Plans ...................................................................................................... 10
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction .................................................... 11
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ........................................................................................... 11
Section 4.5. Records ....................................................................................................................... 12
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance ..................................................................................................................... 13
Section 5.2. Qualifications.............................................................................................................. 14
Section 5.3. Subordination ............................................................................................................. 15
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 ii
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes ............................................................................. 16
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes ......................................................................................................... 16
Section 6.3. Qualifications.............................................................................................................. 21
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally ..................................................................................................................... 17
Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage ..................................................... 17
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination ...................................................................................... 17
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development ............................................................................. 18
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement .......................................................................................... 18
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants .................................................................... 19
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined .......................................................................................... 21
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default .................................................................................................. 21
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive ................................................................................................ 21
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ........................................................ 22
Section 9.5. Attorney Fees .............................................................................................................. 22
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable ................................. 23
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................ 23
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use ..................................................................................................... 23
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed ............................................................................ 23
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections ................................................................................... 23
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ................................................................................................. 23
Section 10.7. Counterparts................................................................................................................ 24
Section 10.8. Recording .................................................................................................................... 24
Section 10.9. Amendment ................................................................................................................ 24
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals ................................................................................................... 24
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 iii
TESTIMONIUM ................................................................................................................................ 25
SIGNATURES ................................................................................................................................... 25
SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property
SCHEDULE B Oxford Street Parcels
SCHEDULE C Authorizing Resolution
SCHEDULE D Certificate of Completion
SCHEDULE E Subordination Agreement
SCHEDULE F Pro Forma
SJB-174163v4
SA285-50 1
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the _____ day of __________, 2004, by and between the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), a public body corporate and
politic under the laws of Minnesota, and The Rottlund Company, Inc. (the “Redeveloper”), a
Minnesota corporation.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090
to 469.1081 (the "Act") and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a
resolution of the City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and
redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”), and in this connection created the Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Project”) in an area (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Area”) located in the City
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain activities
to prepare such real property for development and redevelopment by private enterprise; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper acquired certain property (the “Redevelopment Property”) in
the Project Area to develop on that property approximately 224 units of owner-occupied housing,
including 80 condominiums intended for occupancy by seniors, 66 loft condominiums, and 78
townhouses (the “Minimum Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has established the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing
District (“TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, made up of
the area to be redeveloped by the Redeveloper; and
WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the development of the Redevelopment Property
pursuant to and in general fulfillment of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the
City, will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and will be in accord with
the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under
which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 2
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended.
“Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended, or supplemented.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
“Authority Representative” means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person
designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of this
Agreement.
"Authorizing Resolution" means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form of
attached Schedule C to be adopted by the Authority to approve this agreement and authorize the
issuance of the Note.
“Available Tax Increment” has the meaning provided in the Authorizing Resolution.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which the
City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law
or executive order to close.
“Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, as amended.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
“Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided to the Redeveloper, or the
purchaser of any part, parcel, or unit of the Redevelopment Property, pursuant to Section 4.4 of this
Agreement.
"Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which
(a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are
submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the
following for each building: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) basement plans; (4) floor plan
for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape
plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the Authority may
reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 3
“County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IX of this
Agreement.
"Holder" means the owner of a Mortgage.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
"Maturity Date" means the date that the Note has been paid in full or terminated in
accordance with its terms, whichever is earlier.
“Minimum Improvements” means construction on the Redevelopment Property of
approximately 221 units of owner-occupied housing, including 80 condominiums intended for
occupancy by seniors, 63 loft condominiums, and 78 townhouses, subject to the terms of Section
3.5.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper that is secured, in whole or in
part, with the Redevelopment Property and that is a permitted encumbrance pursuant to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement.
"Note" means a Tax Increment Revenue Note, substantially in the form contained in the
Authorizing Resolution, to be delivered by the Authority to the Redeveloper in accordance with
Section 3.3 hereof.
“Oxford Street Parcels” means the portion of the Redevelopment Property so described in
Schedule B.
"Parcel" means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property.
"Project" means the Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1.
“Public Redevelopment Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.3(a) hereof.
“Project Area” means the geographic area within the boundaries of the Project.
“Redeveloper” means The Rottlund Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or its
permitted successors and assigns.
“Redevelopment Plan” means the Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
“Redevelopment Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this
Agreement, provided that upon filing of a final replat of such property, the platted legal description
will control.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 4
“State” means the state of Minnesota.
"Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes that is paid with respect to the
Redevelopment Property and that is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the Tax
Increment Act.
"Tax Increment Act" or "TIF Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota
Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended.
"Tax Increment District" or "TIF District" means the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District
created by the City and the Authority.
"Tax Increment Plan" or "TIF Plan" means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF
District approved by the City Council on August 2, 2004, and as it may be amended.
.
“Tax Official” means any County assessor, County auditor, County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax
court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
“Transfer” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof.
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to
be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, prolonged
adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements, litigation
commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in
delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority or City in
exercising their rights under this Agreement), including without limitation condemnation or threat
of condemnation of any portion of the Redevelopment Property, which directly result in delays.
Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays experienced by the Redeveloper in obtaining permits
or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the
dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, so long as the Construction
Plans have been approved in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 5
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority. (a) The Authority is an economic
development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the
provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement
and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The Authority will use its best efforts to facilitate development of the Minimum
Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in obtaining
necessary administrative and land use approvals and construction financing pursuant to Section 7.1
hereof.
(c) The Authority will issue the Note, subject to all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
(d) The activities of the Authority are undertaken for the purpose of fostering the
redevelopment of certain real property that is occupied by substandard and obsolete buildings,
which will revitalize this portion of the Project Area, increase tax base, and increase housing
opportunities.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Redeveloper is a corporation, duly organized and in good standing under the
laws of the State, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of incorporation or bylaws, is
duly authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and
has duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by proper action of
the officers of its board of directors.
(b) If the conditions precedent to construction occur, the Redeveloper will construct the
Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan
and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental,
zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations).
(c) The Redeveloper will use reasonable efforts to secure all permits, licenses and
approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper has received no notice or communication from any local, state or
federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in the Project Area may be or
will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or
communications of which the Authority is aware). The Redeveloper is aware of no facts the
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 6
existence of which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any
local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure.
(e) The Redeveloper will cause construction of the Minimum Improvements in
accordance with all local, state or federal energy-conservation laws or regulations.
(f) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the
terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(g) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for
the tax increment financing assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 7
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs
Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property. (a) As of the date of this Agreement the
Redevelopment Property is owned the Redeveloper. The parties agree and understand that
Redeveloper acquired the Redevelopment Property, including without limitation the Oxford Street
Parcels, in reliance on and in anticipation of receiving tax increment financing assistance in
connection with redevelopment of that property, as recognized by the City in approval of the
preliminary plat and PUD on March 15, 2004. The Authority has no obligation to acquire the
Redevelopment Property.
(b) Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocation benefits, if any, that may be payable in
connection with acquisition of any Parcel of the Redevelopment Property, including without
limitation the Oxford Street Parcels. Without limiting the Redeveloper's obligations under Section
8.3 hereof, the Redeveloper will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City, and
their governing body members, employees, agents, and contractors from any and all claims for
benefits or payments arising out of the relocation or displacement of the lessee or any person from
the Redevelopment Property as a result of the implementation of this Agreement.
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions. (a) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the
Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the Redevelopment Property for construction of the
Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such
property, and that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies
any responsibility by the Authority or the City for any contamination of the Redevelopment
Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the
Redevelopment Property.
(b) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the
Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City,
and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out
of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the Redevelopment
Property (including without limitation any asbestos in any existing building), unless and to the
extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of
the indemnitees. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or affect any limitations on
liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including without limitation Minnesota
Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02.
Section 3.3. Issuance of Note. (a) Generally. The Authority is authorized to acquire real
property and convey such property to private entities at a price determined by the Authority in order
to facilitate development or redevelopment of the property. The Authority has determined that, in
order to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to
reimburse Redeveloper for the cost of: (i) acquiring the Oxford Street Parcels prior to the date of
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 8
this Agreement (as described in Section 3.1); (ii) grading and similar site improvements on the
Oxford Street Parcels and the two other residential Parcels along Oxford Street; and (iii) demolition
of buildings on all Parcels of the Redevelopment Property (collectively referred to as “Public
Redevelopment Costs”), subject to the terms of this Section.
(b) Terms. To reimburse the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper, the
Authority shall issue and the Redeveloper shall purchase the Note in the maximum principal
amount of $790,000. The Authority shall issue and deliver the Note upon Redeveloper having:
(i) delivered to the Authority written evidence satisfactory to the Authority that
Redeveloper has incurred Public Redevelopment Costs in an amount least equal to the
principal amount of the Notes, which evidence must include copies of the purchase
agreements and closing statements for the Oxford Street Parcels and paid invoices or other
comparable evidence for demolition costs.
(ii) submitted and obtained Authority approval of financing in accordance with
Section 7.1; and
(iii) delivered to the Authority an investment letter in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the Authority, from Redeveloper.
The terms of the Note will be substantially those set forth in the form of the Note shown in
Schedule C, and the Note will be subject to all terms of the Authorizing Resolution, which are
incorporated herein by reference.
(c) Termination of right to Note. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, if the conditions for delivery of the Note are not met by December 31, 2004, the
Authority may terminate the Note and this Agreement by ten days written notice to the
Redeveloper. Thereafter neither party shall have any obligations or liability to the other hereunder,
except that any obligations of the Redeveloper under Sections 3.6 and 8.3 survive such termination.
(d) Assignment of Note. Except for a collateral assignment to a Holder as described in
Schedule E (or any substantially similar assignment document), the Redeveloper may not transfer
or assign its interest in the Note to another party without the written consent of the Authority.
Section 3.4. Prepayment of Note from Net Profit. (a) The Authority has determined to
make available to the Redeveloper the financial assistance outlined in Section 3.3 of this
Agreement through the issuance of the Note on the basis of certain assumptions regarding likely
costs and expenses affecting the Minimum Improvements and proceeds to be derived by the
Redeveloper from the sale of the Property. The likely costs and proceeds have allowed the
parties to estimate the profit (calculated before income taxes are applied) likely to be received by
the Redeveloper. The Authority and Redeveloper agree that those assumptions will be reviewed
at the time described in paragraph (b), in accordance with the development pro forma attached
hereto as Schedule F.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 9
(b) Within 60 days after closing on Redeveloper’s sale to third parties of the final unit of
completed Minimum Improvements (the “Final Closing Date”), the Redeveloper agrees to provide
such financial data to the Authority’s consultant in a format in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, and as may be necessary for the consultant to calculate the actual
rate of return to the Redeveloper, and other relevant information. The Redeveloper agrees to
provide to the Authority’s consultant any background documentation related to the financial data,
upon request. If, based on such review, the actual profit (calculated in a manner comparable to
Estimated Profit in Schedule F) for the Redeveloper exceeds a 12% rate of return (to be
calculated in a manner comparable to the Estimated Profit in Schedule F divided by the Total
Sales in Schedule F), then 50 percent of excess amount of profit (the “Prepayment Amount”) will
be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Note in accordance with the
terms of Section 5(b) of the Note. Such prepayment will be effective upon delivery to Redeveloper
of a written notice stating the amount of excess profit determined by the Authority in accordance
with this Section; however, the prepayment of the Note will be deemed to have occurred as of the
Final Closing Date.
(c) If, as of the Final Closing Date, the final payment on the Note has been deferred as
described in Section 3(b) of the Note, the Prepayment Amount will be applied to reduce any
payment amount (whether principal or interest) then due. If the Prepayment Amount exceeds the
total Note payment then due, the Redeveloper shall repay such excess to the Authority upon receipt
of the Authority’s notice under Section 3.4(b).
Section 3.5. Business Subsidy Act. The parties agree and understand that any assistance
provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement is not a “business subsidy” under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 116J.993, subd. 3 because the assistance is for housing.
Section 3.6. Planning Approvals. The Redeveloper shall obtain all planning approvals
necessary to construct the Minimum Improvements, including without limitation a planned unit
development and replat of the Redevelopment Property. The parties agree and understand that the
precise number of units constituting the Minimum Improvements will be specified in such planning
approvals.
Section 3.7. Payment of Authority Costs. The Redeveloper agrees that it will pay, within
15 days after written notice from the Authority, the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys
retained by the Authority in connection with the creation of the TIF District and the negotiation in
preparation of this Agreement and other incidental agreements and documents related to the
development contemplated hereunder. The Authority will provide written reports describing the
costs accrued under this Section upon request from the Redeveloper, but not more often than
intervals of 45 days. Any amount deposited by the Redeveloper upon filling its application for tax
increment financing with the Authority will be credited to the Redeveloper’s obligation under this
Section. Upon termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, the Redeveloper
remains obligated under this section for costs incurred through the effective date of termination.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 10
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct
or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in
accordance with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the
Redeveloper retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and
maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements to
be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good
repair and condition.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before commencing construction of the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the Minimum
Improvements. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum
Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all
applicable State and local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction Plans
in writing if (i) the Construction Plans conform to all terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii)
the Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the
Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the Minimum
Improvements; (v) the Construction Plans do not provide for expenditures in excess of the funds
available to the Redeveloper for construction of the Minimum Improvements; and (vi) no Event of
Default has occurred. No approval by the Authority shall relieve the Redeveloper of the obligation
to comply with the terms of this Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations, or to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No
approval by the Authority shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the
Construction Plans is requested by the Redeveloper in writing at the time of submission, such
Construction Plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected in writing by the Authority, in whole
or in part. Such rejections shall set forth in detail the reasons therefore, and shall be made within 20
days after the date of receipt of final plans from the Redeveloper. If the Authority rejects any
Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Redeveloper shall submit new or corrected Construction
Plans within 20 days after written notification to the Redeveloper of the rejection. The provisions
of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans
shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the Authority. The
Authority's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitute a
conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements,
constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the Authority's satisfaction with the
provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
The Redeveloper hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever
resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the
Construction Plans requested by the Authority. Neither the Authority, the Authority, nor any
employee or official of the Authority or City shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 11
defect in the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including
changes requested by the Authority.
(b) If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans or
any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the
proposed change to the Authority for its approval. For the purpose of this section, the term
“material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $100,000 or more. If the
Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this
Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the
Authority shall approve the proposed change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval.
Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority
unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the Authority to the Redeveloper, setting
forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within 10 days after receipt of the
notice of such change. The Authority's approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will
not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to Unavoidable
Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by
December 31, 2004. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the
construction of the Minimum Improvements by June 30, 2007. All work with respect to the
Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment
Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and
approved by the Authority.
The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, and every successor in interest
to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such successors and
assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the development of the
Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that
such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in
this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. After the date of this Agreement and until construction of the
Minimum Improvements has been completed, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such detail
and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, but no more than monthly, as to
the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such construction
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the
obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for
beginning and completion thereof), the Authority Representative will furnish the Redeveloper with
a Certificate shown as Schedule D.
(b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority Representative
shall, within 30 days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a
written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to
complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 12
otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority,
for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order to obtain such certification.
(c) The construction of any unit the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be
substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit, and the entire
Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be substantially complete when certificates of
occupancy have been issued for all units (or for all buildings, if unit-by-unit certificates have not
been issued), and the Authority Representative has determined that all related site improvements on
the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance with approved
Construction Plans.
(d) Upon Redeveloper’s request, the Authority will furnish to the Redeveloper a
Certificate of Completion for each housing unit in the Minimum Improvements upon substantial
completion of such unit, as evidenced by issuance of a certificate of occupancy therefor by the
responsible inspecting authority.
Section 4.5. Records. The Authority and the City through any authorized representatives,
shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect, examine and copy all
books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Minimum Improvements. Redeveloper shall also
use best efforts to cause the contractor or contractors, all sub-contractors and their agents, and
lenders to make their books and records relating to the Project to the Authority and City, upon
reasonable notice, for inspection, examination and audit. Such records shall be kept and maintained
by Redeveloper through the Maturity Date.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 13
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain at all times during
the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance
Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the
Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk --
Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Note,
and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form of policy.
The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and
content satisfactory to the Authority;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual liability
insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits against bodily
injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish
the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used). The Authority
shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that the
Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers’
compensation.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense,
and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of
premiums on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under
a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar
businesses.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury
liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or
property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000, and
shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers' compensation insurance respecting
all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customarily carried by like
organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 14
that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for
workers' compensation.
(c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper that are authorized
under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Redeveloper will
deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or
certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect.
Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a provision
that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage provided
below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and the
Authority at least 30 days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In lieu of
separate policies, the Redeveloper may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a
combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the Redeveloper shall
deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of
coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage
exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion
thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will forthwith repair,
reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved
condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary
to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the net
proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or
reimbursement of the costs thereof.
The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum
Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the Redeveloper for
such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining after completion of
such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper.
(e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements as set forth in
this Section, the Redeveloper shall have the option of: (i) paying to the Authority an amount that,
in the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal consultant, is sufficient to pay or redeem the
outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Note, or (ii) so long as the Redeveloper is the
owner of the Note, waiving its right to receive subsequent payments under the Note.
(f) The Redeveloper and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set
forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement.
Section 5.2. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that the provisions of Section 5.1 hereof shall not apply to a residential unit
within the Minimum Improvements from and after the date that such unit is substantially completed
and sold to an owner-occupant.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 15
Section 5.3. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the rights
of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any insurance proceeds shall, in all
respects, be subordinate and subject to the rights of any Holder under a Mortgage allowed
pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 16
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the development through
reimbursement of land acquisition costs. The Redeveloper understands that the Tax Increments
pledged to payment on the Note are derived from real estate taxes on the Redevelopment Property,
which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, the Redeveloper agrees for itself, its
successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, that
it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before delinquency all real estate taxes
assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper
acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on behalf of the Authority to sue the
Redeveloper or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes and any penalty or
interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the county auditor. In any such suit,
the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees.
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to the Maturity Date it
will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment Property
through: (A) willful destruction of the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof; or (B) willful
refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement,
except as provided in Section 5.1(e). The Redeveloper also agrees that it will not, prior to the
Maturity Date, seek exemption from property tax for the Redevelopment Property or any portion
thereof or transfer or permit the transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity that is exempt
from real property taxes and state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the
City in accordance with platting of the Redevelopment Property), or apply for a deferral of property
tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law.
Section 6.3. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that the provisions of Sections 6.1 and 6.2 hereof shall not apply to a
residential unit within the Minimum Improvements from and after the date that such unit is
substantially completed and sold to an owner-occupant.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 17
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally. Before issuance of the Note, the Redeveloper shall submit to the
Authority or provide access thereto for review by Authority staff, consultants and agents, evidence
reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that Redeveloper has available funds, or commitments to
obtain funds, whether in the nature of mortgage financing, equity, grants, loans, or other sources
sufficient for paying the cost of the developing the Minimum Improvements, provided that any
lender or grantor commitments shall be subject only to such conditions as are normal and
customary in the commercial lending industry.
Section 7.2. Authority's Option to Cure Default on Mortgage. In the event that any portion
of the Redeveloper's funds is provided through mortgage financing, and there occurs a default under
any Mortgage authorized pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall cause the
Authority to receive copies of any notice of default received by the Redeveloper from the holder of
such Mortgage. Thereafter, the Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any
such default on behalf of the Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to the
Redeveloper under the Mortgage documents.
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for
the development of the Minimum Improvements, the Authority agrees to subordinate its rights
under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage securing construction or permanent financing,
in accordance with the terms of a subordination agreement substantially in the form attached as
Schedule E, or such other form as the Authority approves.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 18
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development. The Redeveloper represents and agrees
that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the
Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Redevelopment Property
and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of
Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Completion for all of the Minimum Improvements:
(a) Except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining
financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment
Property, or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to undertaking the
redevelopment contemplated under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this
Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be
made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power,
or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment
Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the
same, to any person or entity whether or not related in any way to the Redeveloper (collectively,
a “Transfer”), without the prior written approval of the Authority (whose approval will not be
unreasonably withheld, subject to the standards described in paragraph (b) of this Section) unless
the Redeveloper remains liable and bound by this Redevelopment Agreement in which event the
Authority’s approval is not required. Any such Transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this
Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term Transfer does not include acquisition
of a controlling interest in Redeveloper by another entity or merger of Redeveloper with another
entity.
(b) In the event the Redeveloper, upon Transfer of the Redevelopment Property or
any portion thereof either before or after issuance of the final Certificate of Completion, seeks to
be released from its obligations under this Redevelopment Agreement as to the portions of the
Redevelopment Property that is transferred, the Authority shall be entitled to require, except as
otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such release that:
(i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial
responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to fulfill
the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion of the
Redevelopment Property to be transferred.
(ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota,
shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the Authority,
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 19
have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under this Agreement as to
the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the
conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is subject as to such portion; provided,
however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any other successor in interest whatsoever to,
the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for whatever reason, have
assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise
specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the Authority) deprive the
Authority of any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the Redevelopment Property,
the Minimum Improvements or any part thereof or the construction of the Minimum
Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the
fullest extent permitted at law and in equity and excepting only in the manner and to the
extent specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with
respect to, ownership in the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof, or any interest
therein, however consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall
operate, legally, or practically, to deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any
rights or remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to
the Redevelopment Property that the Authority would have had, had there been no such
transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the
contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve the
Redeveloper, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with
respect to the Redevelopment Property, from any of its obligations with respect thereto.
(iii) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting
the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property governed by this
Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority.
In the event the foregoing conditions are satisfied then the Redeveloper shall be released from its
obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is
transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed.
(c) The parties agree and understand that Redeveloper intends to market and sell
individual units of the Minimum Improvements to third party buyers for residential occupancy.
Nothing in this Article VIII will be construed to limit Redeveloper’s marketing and sales activity,
require Authority approval of such sales, or require, as a condition for release of the Redeveloper
hereunder or otherwise, that persons who purchasers any residential unit for occupancy assume any
obligations of the Redeveloper hereunder. Upon transfer of any portion of the Redevelopment
Property to another person or entity except for sales to owner-occupants, the Redeveloper will
remain obligated under this Agreement with respect to such portion transferred, unless the
Redeveloper is released from such obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Section.
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willful
misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties
as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 20
obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper releases from and covenants and agrees that the
Authority, the City, and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees
thereof (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any
person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the
Minimum Improvements.
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified
Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend
the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from
any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity
whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated
hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the
Redevelopment Property.
(c) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of
the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall
not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Redeveloper or its officers,
agents, servants, or employees or any other person who may be about the Redevelopment Property
or Minimum Improvements.
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and
obligations of such entity and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or
employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 21
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under
this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement,
any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides 30 days written
notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not been cured within said 30
days or, if the event is by its nature incurable within 30 days, the defaulting party does not, within
such 30-day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the party providing notice of
default that the event will be cured and will be cured as soon as reasonably possible:
(a) Failure by the Redeveloper or Authority to observe or perform any covenant,
condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement.
(b) If, before issuance of the certificate of completion for all the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall
(i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States
Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law; or
(ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or
(iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or
(iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section
9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the Authority may:
(a) Suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement.
(b) Upon a default by the Redeveloper, the Authority may terminate the Note and this
Agreement.
(c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable, or administrative action, which
may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce
performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement.
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any
party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such
remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 22
Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to
exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall
be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to
time and as often as may be deemed expedient. To entitle the Authority to exercise any remedy
reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in
this Article IX.
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other
party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to
waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 9.5. Attorney Fees. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the Authority
shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of payments due or to become due
or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of
the Redeveloper under this Agreement, the Redeveloper agrees that it shall, within 10 days of
written demand by the Authority, pay to the Authority the reasonable fees of such attorneys and
such other expenses so incurred by the Authority.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 23
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable. The Authority
and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that no member,
official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the
Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to
the Agreement that affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or
association in which he, directly or indirectly, is interested. No member, official, or employee of
the City or Authority shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper, or any successor in interest, in
the event of any default or breach by the Authority or for any amount that may become due to the
Redeveloper or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement.
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its
successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided
for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local equal employment
and non-discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that until the Maturity Date, the
Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Redevelopment Property to the
operation of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.1 hereof, and shall not
discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or
in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be
erected thereon, or any part thereof.
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this
Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the
Redevelopment Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions
and covenants of this Agreement.
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded
in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the
other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or to
such other addresses as either party may notify the other):
To Redeveloper: The Rottlund Company, Inc.
Attn: Executive Vice President
3065 Centre Pointe Drive
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 24
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
To Authority: St. Louis Park EDA
Attn: Executive Director
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518
Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.8. Recording. The Authority may record this Agreement and any amendments
thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for recording. The
Redeveloper’s obligations under this Agreement are covenants running with the land for the term of
this Agreement, enforceable by the Authority against the Redeveloper, its successor and assigns,
and every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof or any interest
therein.
Section 10.9 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement
approved by the Authority and the Redeveloper.
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required by
the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative, except that final
approval of issuance of the Note shall be made by the Authority’s board of commissioners.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 25
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and Redeveloper have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2004
by ______________________ and ______________ the President and Executive Director of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 26
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
By _______________________________________
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________, ____,
by _________________________, the _________________ of The Rottlund Company, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 A-1
SCHEDULE A
REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 B-1
SCHEDULE B
OXFORD STREET PARCELS
before platting
(after platting, such parcels are included within the Redevelopment Property)
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-1
SCHEDULE C
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
Authorizing Resolution
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND
PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS $790,000 TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2004.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF
District") within Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project"), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the
Development District. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the
TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines
that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its $790,000 Tax Increment
Revenue Note, Series 2004 (the "Note") for the purpose of financing certain public costs of the
Project.
1.02. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. The Authority hereby approves the
Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and the Rottlund Company, Inc. (the
“Agreement”), and authorizes the President and Executive Director to execute such Agreement in
substantially the form on file with the City, subject to modifications that do not alter the
substance of the transaction and are approved by such officials, provided that execution of the
Agreement by such officials is conclusive evidence of their approval. The Authority hereby
delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be
delivered, in accordance with that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between the
Authority and The Rottlund Company, Inc. dated August 2, 2004 (the "Agreement"). The Note
shall be sold to The Rottlund Company, Inc. (the "Owner") and cannot be transferred or assigned
without the written consent of the Authority. The Note shall be dated the date of delivery thereof,
and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.75% per annum to the earlier of maturity or prepayment.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-2
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount and payment schedule adjusted as of the
date of issue:
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $790,000
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 2004
Date
Rate of Original Issue
5.75%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to The Rottlund Company, Inc. or registered
assigns (the "Owner"), the principal sum of $790,000 and to pay interest thereon at the rate of
5.75% per annum, as and to the extent set forth herein.
1. Payments. Principal and interest ("Payments") shall be paid on August 1, 2007 and
each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2012 ("Payment Dates") in
the amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to
accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and
including February 1, 2007 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each
year and added to principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment
Date solely from and in the amount of "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each
Payment Date, 95% of the Tax Increment attributable to the Redevelopment Property and paid to
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-3
the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding the Payment Date, all as such terms
are defined in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and The Rottlund
Company, Inc. (“Redeveloper”) dated as of August 2, 2004 (the "Agreement").
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the
Authority to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall
not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the
extent of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay unpaid balance
of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2012.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Note, if the Certificate of Completion
for all Minimum Improvements has not been issued as of a Payment Date on which the Payment
would be sufficient to retire the outstanding principal and inters on the Note, such Payment will be
deferred (with interest at the stated rate herein) until the date of the Authority’s delivery of a
statement of excess profit as described in Section 5(b) hereof and Section 3.4 of the Agreement, and
is subject to adjustment in accordance with terms of those sections.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of
Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, on the next Payment Date after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event
of Default is not cured in a timely, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the
Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note
is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the excess
profit as described in Section 3.4 of the Agreement, fifty percent of such excess profit will be
deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the principal amount of this Note. Such
deemed prepayment is effective as of the Final Closing Date as defined in Section 3.4 of the
Agreement, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon request of the
Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding principal balance of
the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$790,000, issued to aid in financing certain public development costs and administrative costs of a
Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through
469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the "Resolution") duly adopted by the
Authority on August 2, 2004, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. This Note is
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-4
a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged
to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed
to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof,
including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political
subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs
incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the
taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the
payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.3(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required
by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-5
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
The Rottlund Company, Inc.
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be
payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform
the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be
as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not be
transferred to any person other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless the
Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form
satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery
requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and
until such Payment Date.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-6
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu
of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until
delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to
the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-7
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note.
Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in
accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special "Bond Fund" to be used for no purpose
other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably
agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Tax Increment. Any Available Tax
Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's account for the TIF
District upon the payment of all principal and interest to be paid with respect to the Note.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon full execution of the
Agreement.
JAE-250266v.1
SA285-71 C-8
Adopted this 2nd day of August, 2004.
President
Executive Director
SCHEDULE D
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") and
The Rottlund Company, Inc. (“Redeveloper”) entered into a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment dated August 2, 2004 (“Contract”), filed of record as Document No.
_____________ on _________________; and
WHEREAS, the Contract contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in Articles
III and IV thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is
able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this
certification;
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical
improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the
Redeveloper have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the
Contract have been performed by the Redeveloper, and this Certificate is intended to be a
conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of
Articles III and IV of the Contract related to completion of the Minimum Improvements, but any
other covenants in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated: _______________, 20__. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Authority Representative
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2004
by ______________________, the __________________ of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
SCHEDULE E
Form of Subordination Agreement
THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of this _____
day of __________, 2004, between _______________ ("Lender"), whose address is at
_________________________, and the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic ("Authority").
RECITALS
A. Rottlund Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("Redeveloper"), is the owner
of certain real property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property").
B. Lender has made a mortgage loan to Redeveloper in the original principal amount
of $__________ (the "Loan"). The Loan is the evidenced and secured by the following
documents:
(i) a certain promissory note (the "Note") made by Redeveloper dated
__________, 2004, in the amount of $___________; and
(ii) a certain mortgage, security agreement and fixture financing statement (the
"Mortgage") made by Redeveloper dated __________, 2004, filed __________, 2004, as
Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________ encumbering the
Property; and
(iii) a certain assignment of leases and rents (the "Assignment") made by
Redeveloper dated __________, 2004, filed __________, 2004, as Hennepin County
Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________ encumbering the Property.
The Note, the Mortgage, the Assignment, and all other documents and instruments
evidencing, securing and executed in connection with the Loan, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "Loan Documents."
C. Authority is the owner and holder of certain rights under a certain unrecorded
Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract") by and between Redeveloper and Authority
dated __________,2004.
D. Redeveloper is entitled under the Contract to acquire a certain Tax Increment Tax
Revenue Note, Series 2004 in the original principal amount of $790,000 (the "TIF Note").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and as an inducement to Lender
to make the Loan, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto represent, warrant and agree as follows:
1. Consent. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is making the Loan to the
Redeveloper and consents to the same. The Authority also consents to and approves the
collateral assignment of the Contract and TIF Note (when and if issued) by the Redeveloper to
the Lender as collateral for the Loan; provided, however, that this consent shall not deprive the
Authority of or otherwise limit any of the Authority's rights or remedies under the Contract and
TIF Note and shall not relieve the Redeveloper of any of its obligations under the Contract and
TIF Note; provided further, however, the limitations to the Authority's consent contained in this
Paragraph 1 are subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 below.
2. Subordination. The Authority hereby agrees that the rights of the Authority with
respect to [_____________________] under the Contract are and shall remain subordinate and
subject to liens, rights and security interests created by the Loan Documents and to any and all
amendments, modifications, extensions, replacements or renewals of the Loan Documents;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed as subordinating the requirement
contained in the Contract the Property be used in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.3
of the Contract, or as subordinating the Authority's rights under the TIF Note to suspend
payments in accordance with the TIF Note.
3. Notice to Authority. Lender agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to
notify Authority of the occurrence of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper under the Loan
Documents, in accordance with Section 7.2 of the Contract. The Lender shall not be bound by
the other requirements in Section 7.2 of the Contract.
4. Statutory Exception. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter, remove or affect
Lender's obligation under Minnesota Statutes, § 469.029 to use the Property in conformance with
Section 10.3 of the Contract.
5. No Assumption. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is not a party to the
Contract and by executing this Agreement does not become a party to the Contract, and
specifically does not assume and shall not be bound by any obligations of the Redeveloper to the
Authority under the Contract, and that the Lender shall incur no obligations whatsoever to the
Authority except as expressly provided herein.
6. Notice from Authority. So long as the Contract remains in effect, the Authority
agrees to give to the Lender copies of notices of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper under
the Contract.
7. Governing Law. This Agreement is made in and shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
8. Successors. This Agreement and each and every covenant, agreement and other
provision hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, including any person who acquires title to the Property
through the Lender of a foreclosure of the Mortgage.
9. Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision hereof shall not
render any other provision or provisions herein contained unenforceable or invalid.
10. Notice. Any notices and other communications permitted or required by the
provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given
or served by depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, or any official successor
thereto, designated as registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing adequate
postage, or delivery by reputable private carrier and addresses as set forth above.
11. Transfer of Title to Lender. The Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a
transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure sale, acquires title to the Property pursuant to a
foreclosure, or a deed in lieu thereof, the Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall not be bound by
the terms and conditions of the Contract except as expressly herein provided. Further the
Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure
sale acquires title to the Property pursuant to a foreclosure sale or a deed in lieu thereof, then the
Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall be entitled to all rights conferred upon the Redeveloper
under the Contract, provided that no condition of default exists and remains uncured beyond
applicable cure periods in the obligations of the Redeveloper under the Contract.
12. Estoppel. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender, for the
purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that:
(a) No default or event of default by Redeveloper exists under the terms of the
Contract on the date hereof;
(b) The Contract has not been amended or modified in any respect, nor has any
material provision thereof been waived by either the Authority or the
Redeveloper, and the Contract is in full force and effect;
(c) Such other reasonable certifications as the Lender may request.
13. Amendments. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender for the
purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that
Authority will not agree to any amendment or modification to the or any TIF Note issued under
the Contract that materially affects the collection of Available Tax Increment (as defined in the
Contract) in any way affects the Property without the Lender's written consent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed and delivered as of the day
and year first written above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
Its President
By:
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________,
by and , the Chairperson and Executive
Director, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body
corporate and politic, on behalf of such public body.
Notary Public
[LENDER]
By:
Its __________________________
SCHEDULE F
PRO FORMA
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 1
8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an
amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a
Redevelopment Plan for their property for a residential senior housing
cooperative development
Case Nos. 04-23-CUP
8200 33rd Street West
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt resolution approving a Comprehensive
Plan map amendment changing land use designation for
property at 8200 33rd St W from Civic to High Density
Residential and text amendments to Chapter P of
Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 contingent upon
Metropolitan Council approval.
Zoning: RC, Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Civic
Parcel Size 118,069 sq. ft.
Current Land Use: Vacant School (former Talmud Torah)
Proposed Land Use Senior Co-op
Other required approvals: PUD
Background:
Stonebridge Development & Acquisition, LLC, has submitted an application to amend
the City’s Comprehensive Plan Designation and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the
above-described property, located north of 33rd Street, and east of the cul-de-sac on
Virginia Avenue South. This property is just west of Texas Avenue. The application is
intended to accommodate a proposed redevelopment of the property, which contains the
now vacant Talmud Torah School. This property is currently guided Civic in the
Comprehensive Plan and zoned RC, Multi-Family Residential.
The proposal is to construct a 3 and 4 story, 122 unit senior housing cooperative on the
2.75 acre site currently occupied by a vacant school building. The adoption of a
Redevelopment Plan in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is being requested to allow some
flexibility to certain standards in conjunction with the senior cooperative. Specifically,
the request is to allow reductions in setbacks to the front and side yards (the west and
north property lines), increase the ground floor area (GFAR), and reduce the parking
requirements.
The developer is requesting TIF assistance which is being considered separately by the
City Council and EDA.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 2
Multi-Family dwellings are permitted with conditions in the RC, Multi-Family Zoning
district, however if a Redevelopment Plan for the project is adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and approval is
required. A complete PUD application has been received and staff is currently reviewing
the plans. If the Comprehensive Plan amendments are approved, the PUD request will be
scheduled to be heard before the Planning Commission on August 18, 2004.
On June 2, 2004 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and heard
testimony from residents who had concerns regarding the upcoming project proposal (See
attached Unofficial PC Minute Excerpts). The Planning Commission encouraged
neighborhood collaboration and requested information from a traffic study including a
neighborhood comparison of number of trips generated by multifamily housing be
brought back with the PUD proposal. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 10, 2004. The neighborhood identified some
the following issues:
• There were many concerns about traffic and potential traffic increases.
• The height and scale of the building will shadow the single family backyards to
the east in the summer months, and potential loss of privacy.
• The building is too dense.
• Some residents were worried surrounding property values would diminish.
• A few residents were interested in this as a housing option and one asked to be put
on a waiting list.
The developer explained the current plan, and committed to providing additional
information on specific items requested, such as a summer shadow study, a traffic study,
and a rendering to show the scale of the building compared to the surrounding area.
SRF consulting was hired to complete a traffic analysis on behalf of the City and paid for
by Stonebridge Development. The study analyzed anticipated effects of the proposed
development on traffic, peak hour operations and site access. The study is attached and
the results are described below. A consultant from SRF will be in attendance at the
Council meeting to answer questions.
On July 28th, another neighborhood meeting was held at City Hall. Approximately 45-50
residents attended the meeting (of those, 28 signed in). Another petition against the
project, identical to the ones previously submitted, was submitted prior to the meeting
with 24 additional signatures of residents along the 3100 and 3200 block of Texas Ave.
During the meeting staff explained the process and actions that need to happen before a
project would receive approval. The developer provided a project description; explained
changes that have been made to the plans based upon previous comments, answered
questions and took additional comments. It was generally a positive meeting. There was
a mixture of reactions to the project both in favor and against the proposal. Some of the
issues raised were concerns that traffic will be increased and the size of the building is
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 3
too large. Others liked the concept, use, size of units and proposed prices. The developer
agreed to have a follow-up meeting with the owners of the single family homes that abut
the project along Texas. The purpose would be to discuss specific design modifications
to the buffer along the east property line. These residents are potentially the most
affected by the development.
Project Description
The developer proposes to demolish the existing school building and construct a 3 and 4
story (the east wing of the building adjacent to the existing single family homes would be
3 stories, as would the west wing adjacent to 33rd, the rest of the building would be 4
stories), 122 unit senior housing cooperative (Aquila Commons). The developer has
stated, “cooperatives are a form of housing in which residents own their units by
purchasing a share of the corporation that owns the building on behalf of the residents.
Residents then pay a monthly charge to cover the mortgage, costs of operating and cost of
maintaining the building. The structure of cooperatives allows for lower operating costs,
participation in the growth of equity by individual tenants, and provides the same tax
advantages as home owners. This will provide an affordable and sustainable housing
option for the senior community” (see attached application).
A concept plan was submitted for adoption into the Redevelopment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. It shows a horseshoe shaped building with a surface parking lot
accessed off of 33rd Street and access to underground parking off of Virginia Avenue.
The plan proposes garden plots on the east side of the building and an outdoor front porch
area with gardens, arbors, water features and benches in front of the main entry (south
side of the building). Sidewalks are shown throughout the site and along most street
frontages except around the curve of the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends the sidewalk be
continued around the cul-de-sac with a stair connection over the hill to connect to the
sidewalk on 33rd Street. This would create connections to both the park and to a transit
line on Texas Avenue for residents located along Virginia Avenue and north of the
subject property.
Surrounding Uses and Zoning:
Existing Use Zoning
North Nursing Home RC
East Single Family Residential R2
South Single Family Residential R2
West Multi-Family Condominiums RC
Issues:
• Is the proposed change in land use consistent with the zoning designation?
• What are the purpose and standards for adopting a Redevelopment Plan?
• What modifications are being requested to the Zoning Ordinance requirements
and why?
• Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Livable Community
principles, Redevelopment Plan goals, and Neighborhood Plan goals?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 4
• What are the results of the traffic study?
Analysis:
Is the proposed land use consistent with the zoning designation?
The existing school building was built in the late 1950’s. Today, the school is no longer
operating and the building is now vacant. The property owners are interested in
redeveloping this property, however any redevelopment and change in land use is
required to be consistent with both the zoning and the land use guiding for the parcel.
As stated previously the zoning on the subject property is R-C, Multi-Family Residential
and it is guided as Civic. Under this land use (Civic) public buildings such as schools,
government buildings, religious institutions, community centers and libraries are
permitted (parks and open space are not included in this category). The proposal is to
change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential to accommodate
a senior housing co-op. This land use would be consistent with the current zoning
designation and would permit a multi-family housing project. It would also be consistent
with the existing land uses to the north and west, which contain a nursing home and
multi-family condominium development respectively.
What are the purpose and standards for adopting a Redevelopment Plan?
Multi-family housing is a permitted use with conditions in the R-C High Density
Residential District. One of the conditions specifies that “Conditions a through g [the
conditions for multi-family development] and certain performance standards may be
waived or amended using a PUD process if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the
area that has been adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.” Therefore, the
Redevelopment Plan allows flexibility in meeting certain Zoning Ordinance requirements
provided a PUD is approved, plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
Redevelopment goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A Redevelopment Plan can allow for
greater modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements than a PUD ordinance in
some areas. With the current proposal, the developer is requesting a modification to the
ground floor area requirement, front and side yard setback requirements, and parking
standards. Some of these modifications exceed the maximum modification allowed
under a PUD (See below for further analysis) alone.
What modifications are being requested to the Zoning Ordinance requirements and
why?
The following modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements are being requested
by the developer. The PUD modification allowances are listed as a guide, along with the
standard requirement and the proposed modifications. The areas where the proposed
modification exceeds the modification allowed by PUD are the ground floor area ratio,
and the side yard setback. Existing nonconformities on the property are not addressed as
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 5
this property is planned for redevelopment and will be addressed through the PUD
process in the near future.
Standard Requirement PUD mod. Resulting PUD Actual
Allowed Standard Requested
Ground Floor Area .25 5% increase 26.25 .33
Front Yard Setback 30 feet No required 0 10 feet
(Virginia Ave.) yard
Side Yard Setback ±80 feet None ±80 feet 20 feet
(North prop. Line)
Parking Reductions 244 stalls Up to 30% 183 stalls 183 stalls
decrease
Proposed Modifications: The proposed modifications (italics) are listed below.
• Proposed increase in ground floor area (GFAR): Ground Floor Area Ratio may be
a maximum of .33. The increase in ground floor area (ratio of building footprint
to lot area) is the result of larger ‘for sale’ owner occupied housing units. In an
initial concept for this development, which met the ground floor area requirement,
smaller units were proposed. However, a market study conducted by the
developer indicated larger units are desirable. The proposed increase to
accommodate larger ‘for sale’ housing and the average units per acre are
compatible with the City goals. As a side note, the developer is requesting TIF
assistance and has been working with the City’s Economic Development
Coordinator on that process. One other reason for the increase in ground floor
area is the developer’s efforts to meet the zoning code’s building wall deviation
requirements. The developer is providing additional bump outs in the building
footprint instead of incorporating an architectural feature such as brick pilasters.
Bumpouts are more attractive than pilasters but increase the ground floor area. In
addition, the ground floor area requirement could be met by increasing the height
of the building, which is allowable by Code. The developer is trying to be more
consistent with the overall heights of other multi-family development in the
neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed design is superior to construction of a
taller building, and even though the ground floor area is proposed to be increased,
the proposed project still meets and may exceed the designed outdoor recreational
area/open space requirements.
• Proposed setback reductions: Building setback may be a minimum of 10 feet on
the west, 20 feet on the north. The developer proposes to have a 10 foot setback
from the cul-de-sac on Virginia Avenue (Front yard) and a 20 foot setback from
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 6
the north property line (Side yard). The RC zoning district requires a minimum of
30 feet for the front yard setback and due to the size and height of the building a
minimum of 87 feet for the north side yard setback. The front yard setback
requirement can be reduced to have a zero yard setback requirement under the
PUD process and both requirements can be waived if addressed in a
Redevelopment Plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The reduced
front yard setback will bring the proposed building closer to Virginia Avenue,
which will allow for a large landscaped area on the east side to screen the building
from the single family residential properties. A shading analysis has been
provided which shows that proposed building does not shade the nursing home to
the north even with a reduced side yard setback. The nursing home’s parking lot
is adjacent to the north lot line, and the 3 to 4 story nursing home itself is located
in the center of their property. Staff prefers the larger green space to be located
east of the building to provide more space for landscaping and screening adjacent
to the single-family homes along Texas Avenue.
• Reduction in parking: Allow parking reductions as approved by PUD. Proposed
parking reductions are consistent with the allowable 15% modification though
PUD and 10% transit reduction. The developer is proposing 1.5 parking stalls per
dwelling unit for a total of 183 parking spaces for 122 units. With the PUD and
transit reductions the ordinance requires 183 spaces. The developer believes there
is more parking than is really needed and proposes to construct 169 parking
spaces and designate an area for 14 more spaces as proof of parking that can be
provided if needed in the future. This reduces the paved area and increases the
green space while ensuring enough parking will be provided.
In order to qualify for the transit reduction the developer is required to install a
sidewalk to the existing bus stop on Texas Avenue and 33rd Street. The developer
has proposed to construct a sidewalk along all street frontages and to extend the
33rd Street sidewalk to the east to connect to Texas Avenue. The sidewalk along
33rd Street will also connect to the trail directly to the west (this trail is part of the
Aquila Park trail system). This extension will provide a connection to the transit
stop on the corner of Texas Avenue and 33rd, and will complete a sidewalk/trail
segment identified on the adopted Trail & Sidewalk Plan in the Comprehensive
Plan (see attached City Wide Trail and Sidewalk Master Plan). It also provides a
connection from the sidewalk along Texas Ave west to the trail system in Aquila
Park, the regional trail system and even to Knollwood Mall (see attached City
sidewalk and trail map &). One resident who lives at 3256 Texas Avenue (corner
of Texas & 33rd Street) is concerned that this sidewalk will be too close to their
existing garage and home. Based upon a survey it appears the house is setback 1
foot and the garage 2 feet from the property line (33rd St.; staff believes an error
was made when the home was original built and surveyed as the home was shown
to be 9 feet from the property line on the original survey).
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 7
Staff understands the need to compromise on locations when retrofitting
sidewalks in areas where none exist. In this case, staff believes a sidewalk
connection to Texas Ave is needed for safety reasons; and will meet the City’s
goals of providing pedestrian connections to services and amenities. It is
anticipated that the connection will be used not only by seniors using transit but
also by residents using the City’s sidewalk and trail systems.
One of the Comprehensive Plan’s Livable Communities goals is to provide safe
pedestrian ways that separate pedestrians from car traffic and provide easy
connections to encourage pedestrian activity. Staff believes this sidewalk
segment along 33rd Street is important and in fact is shown on the City Wide Trail
and Sidewalk Master Plan. There are several similar situations in other locations
throughout the City where sidewalks are located close to the homes and garages
(see attached examples). To accommodate for the close proximity for the home
and garage at 3256 Texas Avenue, the sidewalk could be placed directly behind
the curb. This will require the removal of a silver maple, which the developer
would be required to replace. The boulevard width is 14 feet and this will provide
approximately 10 feet between the house and sidewalk. Staff will work with the
homeowner and the developer to find an appropriate location for the sidewalk.
The appropriateness of the proposed modifications is addressed below under
Comprehensive Plan Consistency.
• Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Livable Community
principles, Redevelopment Goals, and Neighborhood Plan goals?
Livable Communities Principles: The Comprehensive Plan requires that any private
development which utilizes public funding demonstrate how Livable Communities
principles are addressed in the project. The following principles apply to this
Redevelopment Plan proposal:
• Provide safe, interesting, pleasant pedestrian and bicycle trails which connect all
neighborhoods to services and amenities.
• Facilitate building locations and design which emphasizes a relationship with a
walkable public realm. Support design which emphasizes architecture, art, and
pedestrian and transit connections.
• Provide Life-cycle housing.
In support of these principles, pedestrian and vehicular circulation is good within the
development. New sidewalk connections are proposed which will facilitate pedestrian
connections to gardens, parks, trails and transit facilities. A sidewalk connection is
proposed from the subject property to Texas Avenue and a frequently operated transit
line. In addition, connections are proposed to the trail and Aquila Park east of the site.
Life-cycle housing is being provided and will offer an affordable and sustainable housing
option for the senior community, thus promoting the retention of residents within St.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 8
Louis Park. The proposed cooperative also has the potential to make single-family
homes within St. Louis Park currently owned by seniors available for resale to new
families. Regarding the relationship to the public realm, the removal of the school will
remove a building containing asbestos and replace it with a high quality building thus
improving the appearance of the property. The development will also increase the
amount of open space/outdoor recreational area. A front porch is proposed off the front
of the building and includes the addition of gardens, arbors, benches and other amenities.
Garden plots, berms and landscaping are also proposed on the east side of the building
next to the single family residential properties. The traffic signal at the intersection of
33rd Avenue and Texas Avenue has, in the past, been recommended for approval. As a
part of the proposed project, the developer has agreed to pay for the continued
maintenance of this signal.
Redevelopment Goals: A goal of the Comprehensive Plan’s Redevelopment Chapter to
provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in
the future. Some of the strategies for implementing this goal that apply to this proposal
include: develop public/private partnerships and create incentives for the development of
a variety of housing stock; and seek non-traditional housing options to enable all
demographic groups --including the elderly to remain in St. Louis Park.
The City’s Redevelopment Chapter also uses specific criteria to judge the merit of
housing plans and redevelopment proposals to ensure their sustainability into the future.
The following criteria apply to this proposal.
• Implement Vision St. Louis Park Goals – see livable communities principles above.
• Enhance Neighborhoods – the project proposes to provide sidewalk connections to
parks, open space, and transit.
• Increase Tax Base – this goal is met.
• Improve Infrastructure – developer is proposing to retain an existing traffic signal at a
busy intersection.
• Enhance Transit – sidewalk connections to a transit route on Texas Avenue are
proposed.
• Improve Maintenance – project will remove a building containing asbestos.
• Meet Market Demand – the project helps meet demand of an aging population with
affordable housing options.
• Relate to Adjacent Development – the project will blend with other multi- family
developments to the north and west; provide trail connections to the nearby park;
create a designed outdoor recreational area including individual garden plots.
• Leverage Public Funds Effectively- TIF assistance is anticipated; the level of
assistance is anticipated to be an effective use of public funds.
• Create Jobs – new jobs will be created both with construction of the facility and
management and maintenance of the cooperative.
Aquila Neighborhood ‘Plan by Neighborhood Goals’: The Plan by Neighborhood
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines desired neighborhood improvements for the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 9
Aquila Neighborhood, which is where the subject property is located. Some of the
recommended improvements related to this neighborhood include adding sidewalks
though the neighborhood; improving transit; and providing safe street crossings. As
indicated above, the proposed redevelopment would provide additional sidewalk and trail
connections including transit connections, and would result in the retention of a traffic
light at Texas Avenue and 33rd Street, a major crossing for neighborhood access to Oak
Hill Park and transit on Texas Avenue.
Summary: In general, the proposed modifications are reasonable and meet many of the
goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does
recommend that any future redevelopment of the subject property emphasize livable
communities principles, particularly high density residential in accordance with the
existing multi-family zoning, provide a strong connection between the development and
public spaces and exhibit interesting architecture and pedestrian connections.
What are the results of the traffic study?
Based upon their traffic analysis, which looked at the traffic impacts on adjacent roadway
systems, peak hour operations, and a site plan review, SRF made the following
conclusions.
Traffic forecasts: SRF analyzed three possible development scenarios for the subject site:
1: assumes current zoning (RC) with 122 apartments
2: assumes current use of site – 47,346 sq. ft. school
3: assumes proposed senior housing development
According to their findings the senior housing development is expect to generate
approximately ½ of the daily trips generated by 122 unit apartment units, and 2/3 of the
daily trips generated by an occupied school. SRF estimated the trips generated by the
proposed development would be approximately 425 daily trips, compared to 625 daily
trips with the current use (See table 2 in attached traffic study). During the a.m. peak, 10
trips are expected and 13 trips are anticipated during p.m. peaks. These are very low
volumes and are not expected to affect the nearby intersections, such at Virginia and 32nd,
32nd and Texas, and 33rd and Texas Ave. For comparison purposes SRF also estimated
the number of trips that would be generated at peak hours if 15 single family homes were
on the property. They determined there would be approximately 11 trips during a.m.
peaks and 15 trips during p.m. peaks. Therefore the senior development is expected to
generate a similar number of trips as single family developments during peak hours.
Level of service: All intersections are expected to continue to operate at the same level of
service (LOS A) during the peak hours with completion of the proposed development.
Based upon a delay study completed for the intersection of 32nd Street/Texas Ave, the
current average delay for eastbound vehicles on 32nd St during the a.m. peak hour is
approximately 2 seconds per vehicle. During the p.m. peak hour the average delay is
approximately 7 seconds. The proposed use is not expected to increase these delays.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 10
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Map amendment to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density
Residential, subject to adoption of Comprehensive Plan Redevelopment Plan guidelines
and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Attachments:
Ø Proposed resolutions
Ø Location & Zoning Map (supplement)
Ø Existing & Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps (supplement)
Ø Application and proposed concept plan (supplement)
Ø City sidewalk and trail map and City Trail & Sidewalk Master Plan (supplement)
Ø Traffic study (supplement)
Prepared By: Julie Grove, Associate Planner
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 11
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
8200 33rd STREET WEST
CHANGE LAND USE FROM CIVIC TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ADOPT
A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 12
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by petition of the owners
of the actual property, the guiding of which is proposed to be changed, and
WHEREAS, the owners of the property at 8200 33rd Street West petitioned the City to change
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt
a Redevelopment Plan to allow the redevelopment of the existing educational use, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on June 2, 2004, based on statutes, the
Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of
citizens and public agencies, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from Civic to High
Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan in Chapter P, the Redevelopment Chapter,
for the subject property showing a residential senior housing cooperative development.
1. Change the land use designations from Civic to High Density Residential as
shown on the attached map:
2. Change the Redevelopment Chapter, Chapter P, to adopt a Redevelopment Plan
for a residential senior housing cooperative development with the following:
a. a new Figure P-10, as attached, to be titled “Aquila Commons
Redevelopment Concept Plan”, which will include the following text:
The Aquila Commons redevelopment district was established in 2004 to facilitate the
redevelopment of a former private school (known as Talmud Torah School). A
Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 2, 2004 for 8200 33rd
Street West, and will entail the construction of a 122 unit senior housing cooperative.
Any future redevelopment of the subject property shall emphasize livable communities
principles, provide an attractive public realm, and interesting architecture and pedestrian
connections. The following modifications to performance standards may be adopted
through PUD consideration:
• Ground Floor Area Ratio may be a maximum of .33.
• Building setback may be a minimum of 10 feet on the west, 20 feet on the north.
• Parking reductions as approved by PUD.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 13
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
res-ord/2004/04-23-CP
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8a - Aquila Commons Comp Plan Amendment
Page 14
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO.________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
8200 33rd STREET WEST
This resolution states that the land use designation for property located at 8200 33rd Street West
will be changed from Civic to High Density Residential and that a redevelopment plan for the
property for a residential senior housing cooperative development will be adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August12, 2004
Res/ord/2004/04-23-CPsum
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8b - Firefighters Union Agreement 2004-2005
Page 1
8b. Resolution approving contract with International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF) #993 – Firefighters for 1/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
Approval of 2-year agreement with Firefighters settling for 2004 & 2005.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and International Association of Firefighters
(IAFF) #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment
for two years: 1/1/04 – 12/31/05.
Background:
We are pleased to bring you our final open contract for 2004 - 2005 with our Firefighters. This
agreement was reached after numerous hours of negotiation. The previous contract was for 1
year and it expired on 12/31/03. The agreement is consistent with our other employee groups for
both years and is as follows:
• 2 year agreement
• 2004 wage increase 2% January 1, 1% July 1
• 2005 wage increase 3% January 1, 2005.
• 2004 increase in employer contribution $45/mo. ($550/mo in 2003, to $595/mo. in 2004)
• 2005 increase in employer contribution same as other non-exempt employees.
• Clothing allowance: add 1 job shirt, 1 short and 3 t-shirts to the list of clothing items
issued with the initial set of uniforms.
• The City and the Union agree to implement the MSRS Health Care Savings Plan which
allows employees to save money on a pre-tax basis to pay medical expenses after
termination of public service. The mandatory employee contribution to the HCSP will be
100% of the employee’s severance. The City’s responsibility will be to process the initial
employee enrollment in the plan and forward the appropriate employee contribution.
Comment: This is the first employee group to approve participation in an HCSP.
• Other: some language clean up in recognition, discipline, longevity and shift bid.
All provisions are retroactive to January 1, 2004, with the exception of the MSRS Health Care
Savings Plan. This section on the HCSP will be effective the date the plan is filed and approved
by MSRS in the next several months.
The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International Association of Firefighters
(IAFF) Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/04 –
1/31/05
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8b - Firefighters Union Agreement 2004-2005
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-095
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS (IAFF)
LOCAL NO. 993
JANUARY 1, 2004–DECEMBER 31, 2005
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #
between the City of St. Louis Park and Law International Association of Firefighters (IAFF)
Local #993 effective January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2005.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8c - Lamplighter Lift Station Replacement
Page 1
8c. City Engineer’s Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement Project –
Lift Station Replacement – Project No. 00-18A
This report considers the replacement of an existing storm sewer lift station located at
Pennsylvania Avenue and Franklin Avenue, near Lamplighter Pond.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18A,
approving plans and specifications, and authorizing
advertisement for bids.
Background: The City is currently developing a project to increase the storm water storage
capacity of Lamplighter Pond which would help alleviate flooding at a number of homes in the
area. The proposed plan is to excavate the pond to the north and lower the water elevation. Also,
as a part of this project, the pond bottom would be excavated to remove built-up sediment
deposits, the shorelines re-graded and restored with native vegetation, and the storm sewer lift
station replaced.
There is no natural outlet to the pond. The lift station pumps water from the pond to the City’s
storm sewer system allowing the lake level to remain relatively constant. Due to the lift station’s
age and the condition of its pumps, it is in need of replacement.
Staff has been finalizing the plans for the lift station design and has decided to proceed with this
phase of the overall project as a separate contract. This change was considered because this
work is somewhat specialized and could easily be completed in advance of the other elements of
the project. This would also allow the City to continue to use the existing station while the new
one is being installed.
Analysis: The City’s consultant, WSB and Associates, has prepared plans for the replacement of
the existing lift station. The plans call for replacement of the wet well, intake sewer pipe,
pumps, and control system. The lift station would be constructed near the existing one. Once
the new station becomes operational, the old wet well will be filled and the small building used
to house the electrical controls will be torn down. The only portion of the new lift station which
will appear above ground level will be the control panel. A bituminous driveway will be
installed to access the station from Pennsylvania Avenue. Four (4) trees will need to be removed
to install the new station. Replacement landscaping, including trees and bushes, will be installed
as a part of the contract.
The improved station will provide a safer and more reliable pumping system with fewer
maintenance costs. The pumps and control system will be compatible with others in the City
thus providing ease of use for the Utility Division operators.
Public Information and Consideration: Staff will mail an informational letter to the
surrounding residents and property owners informing them of the construction project.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8c - Lamplighter Lift Station Replacement
Page 2
Construction hours will be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in accordance with previous
direction from the Planning Commission. Access to the site will be limited to Franklin Avenue.
Construction Timing: Installation of the new wet and dry wells would be completed this Fall
before the ground is frozen. It is likely that the pumps and control box will take several months
to be manufactured, so work would be suspended until they are available. In the spring, the
station will be tested and put into operation before removing the old station. Landscaping of the
site would be done at the end of the project. Therefore, construction would likely begin in
October but not be completed until May of 2005.
Financial Considerations: The estimated cost of the lift station replacement project is
$459,000. This includes a 10% contingency. This work is eligible for funding through the
MnDNR grant at a 1:1 match. A summary of the project costs and funding follows:
Project Costs
Construction (includes 10% contingency) $ 410,000
Engineering $ 49,000
TOTAL $ 459,000
Project Funding
MnDNR grant proceeds $ 229,500
Storm Sewer Utility Bond proceeds $ 229,500
TOTAL $ 459,000
Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following
schedule could be met:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council August 2
• Advertise for bids August
• Bid Opening September 9
• Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract September 20
• Construction October through May, 2005
Attachments: Resolution
Site map (supplement)
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8c - Lamplighter Lift Station Replacement
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 00-18A,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
THE LAMPLIGHTER POND LIFT STATION, PROJECT NO. 00-18A
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City
Engineer related to storm water system improvements for the replacement of a storm sewer lift
station at Lamplighter Pond.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the lift station improvements at Lamplighter Pond
within the city is hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 00-18A, is hereby established.
3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, are approved.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear
not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk,
and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and
recommendation to the City Council.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 2, 2004
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Mana ger
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 1
8d. Proposed Amendments to Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294,
295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to
Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain
Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding
clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Case Nos. 04-35-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 1st reading of the ordinance amending Section
36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298
and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to Zoning
to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the
Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain
Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and set second
reading for the August 16th City Council meeting.
Background:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides the city with Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM). These maps indicate the locations and types of flood zones throughout the city. The maps
currently used by the city were completed in June of 1986, and since then, the city and property owners
have initiated several amendments. In March of 2001 the City was provided with preliminary revised
copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These revised maps include all of the amendments approved by
FEMA since 1986, the date of the last approved maps.
FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management as required under the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. As a condition of continued eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the City must remain in compliance with the NFIP regulations
by amending or supplementing the existing floodplain management measures in force to reflect data
shown on the latest FIRM modifications.
Staff has received and reviewed the proposed maps and determined that they accurately portray the
amendments submitted since 1986. Staff has also received a list of “Mandatory Revisions” as required by
FEMA and the DNR. Staff has reviewed these revisions, and determined that they are clarification
amendments only, and do not alter existing policy, or create additional regulations affecting the use of
land.
Planning Commission Action:
The commission reviewed the proposed amendments, and held a public hearing on July 21, 2004. No
comments were received at the hearing. Having no questions of staff, the Commission voted on a 4-0
vote to recommend the City Council approve the proposed amendments.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 2
Analysis:
The following is a brief description of the proposed changes:
Sec. 36-291(d). Purpose and intent.
The purpose is amended to identify the purpose of the ordinance as being to comply with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program, and thereby maintain the city’s eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Sec. 36-292. (a) & (b) Application of division provisions.
These amendments clarify that the final location of proposed buildings will be compared to the 100 year
flood elevation, the amendments replace the 1986 FIRM with the 2004 maps, the regulatory flood
protection is two feet above the regional flood elevation, and that a state increase is allowed in the flood
fringe district as illustrated in the flood study completed in 2001.
Sec. 36-293. Definitions.
Some definitions have been added. Also, the flood fringe and floodplain definitions have been amended
so they include all floodplain and flood fringe areas whether or not the 100 year flood elevation has been
determined.
Sec. 36-294. Establishment of zoning districts.
(a) Amendments to change the name of the referenced map to FIRM.
(b) New manufactured homes are proposed to be removed because we cannot treat them differently
from single family homes, and we do allow someone to move a manufactured home onto a
property, rather than constructing the home on site. FEMA regulations allow Travel trailers
and travel vehicles (Recreational vehicles) to be stored in the flood plain. If we choose to
prohibit them, then FEMA will expect us to enforce. An illegally parked RV may not be
covered by flood insurance. City ordinances allow parking lots in the flood plain, so staff is
proposing to allow recreational vehicles to be stored in the flood plain.
(d)(2)a. This amendment corrects an error in the ordinance by eliminating the “one foot above” the
regulatory flood protection elevation for lowest floor elevations. This statement requires the
grade to be one foot above the lowest floor elevation. For example, the grade would be
required to be one foot above the threshold of a door or else you would be required to have a
step down inside the house, or the lowest floor should be an additional foot above the
regulatory flood elevation.
None of these three options is the intent of the provision. The intent is that the lowest opening
and the lowest floor elevation be at, or no lower than, the regulatory flood protection elevation,
not one foot above it.
(d)(2)b. These amendments clarify how we review existing and new structures. Those structures
existing prior to June 15, 1998 will be reviewed under the regulations that were in place at that
time. All new structures and structures built after June 15, 1998 will be reviewed under the
new rule which requires a 2 foot separation between lowest floor elevation and the 100 year
flood elevation.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 3
(d)(2)c. This amendment corrects an unintended deletion. Section 2 should be included in the
requirements.
(d)(3)b.1. The city does allow areas to be used for storage and garages to be constructed below the 100
year flood elevation. In these instances, flood proofing is required. These amendments update
the flood proofing options by allowing automatic openings. The amendments also include
FEMA’s requirements to have a minimum of two openings on at least two sides. This will
allow the water to flow through the structure.
(d)(4) FEMA has changed the required method to determine the depth to which parking, storage yards
and railroad tracks may be allowed in the flood plain.
(e)(2)a.3 When applying for a conditional use permit, FEMA and the DNR recommend the information
listed in the proposed amendment be provided by the applicant. Staff agrees with the
suggestion, and recommends the amendment be provided. The list of information consists of
information that has been typically required in a flood plain fill application.
(e)(2)b.3. A clarification is proposed to state that the regional flood must not only be stored, but in the
events of rivers or creeks, the water courses ability to convey must also be preserved.
(f)(1) & (2) This amendment establishes requirements to notify the DNR of hearings and decisions in
conditional use permit applications.
(f)(4) This amendment establishes additional factors to be considered when reviewing conditional use
permit applications. They are conditions that are required by FEMA to be included in our
ordinance, and staff believes they are consistent with requirements that we have or would make
in conditional use permit applications.
Sec. 36-295.(b)&(c) Application to subdivision.
These amendments require the applicants of a subdivision of land that involve a floodplain to provide
additional information for the city to review and consider before acting on the subdivision application.
Sec. 36-296(c). Public facilities.
The city does not allow new septic systems, and has two existing systems. Because we have two existing
systems, we are required to have this provision that provides standards for on-site sewage treatment and
water supply systems.
Sec. 36-297 Certification and record.
(a)(1), (3), (5) and (6) . The existing ordinance requires a permit before certain structures or uses can take
place in a flood plain. The proposed amendments add additional instances when a permit
would be required.
(g) & (h) These amendments require notification to FEMA when a watercourse is altered and when the
100 year flood elevation is increased or decreased.
Sec. 36-298. Nonconformities--Compliance with chapter.
(a) This amendment exempts historic structures from provision 36-298(a)(5), and therefore allows a
nonconforming historic structure to be reconstructed or rehabilitated.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 4
(a)(2) This is a simple amendment to clarify that only “structural” alterations will trigger compliance to
the regulatory flood protection elevation.
(a)(4) This amendment replaces the “50% or more” requirement for damaged structures with the
proposed “substantial damaged” definition which maintains the existing 50% or more criteria.
(a)(5) This provision requires any non-conforming structure to be brought into conformance with
provisions of this ordinance if it is substantially improved, meaning, improved beyond 50% of it’s
market value before the start of construction.
Sec. 36-299(a). Amendments.
This amendment reflects a change required by FEMA. The existing provision allows a map to be
amended if the flood plain is filled to the 100-year regional flood elevation. FEMA now is requiring it to
be filled to the regulatory flood protection elevation which is two feet above the regional flood elevation.
Sec. 36-300 Penalties for violation.
FEMA requires a process for enforcing the floodplain regulations. The process involves investigation
into the violation, notification, correction period not to exceed 30 days, and finally establishes what each
day is considered to be a violation.
Section 36-33
(d)(3) This provision requires the Commissioner of the DNR to be notified of variances occurring
within the floodway, flood fringe and floodplain districts.
(d)(5) This amendment changes the format of the subsection.
(d)(5)c These amendments require notification of approval of variances, and place additional criteria to
be satisfied when a floodway, flood fringe or floodplain is involved.
(d)(5)d. FEMA is requiring the city to notify the applicant of a variance involving a floodway, flood
fringe and floodplain that the approval may effect flood insurance premiums and that construction below
the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amending section 36-33(d) pertaining
to variance procedures and Sections 36-291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 pertaining to the
Floodplain Districts.
Attachments:
1. Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Extended copy of relevant code sections showing proposed changes.
Prepared By: Gary Morrison, Asst. Zoning Administrator
952-924-2592
gmorrison@stlouispark.org
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 5
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. _________
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE RELATING TO VARIANCES IN THE FLOOD
DISTRICTS AND RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR THE FLOOD
PLAIN DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has updated the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM ), and is requiring the maps and regulations pertaining to the
flood districts to be updated for those communities that wish to continue to participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Section 2. The City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, and
desires to continue participating in the program,
Section 3. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 04-35-ZA)
Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36 is hereby amended by deleting
stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are
represented by ***.
Section 5. Section 36-33(d)
(3) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public
hearing before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request within 45 days after
the application for a variance is received by the city. The public hearing shall be held
only after the notice required by subsection (b)(1) of this section has been given. The
Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a
copy of the application for proposed variance(s) occurring within a floodway, flood
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 6
fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive
at least ten days notice of the hearing.
***
(5) Issuance. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character
and development of the neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area,
and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. The board of
zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this
chapter provided that:
a. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of
the provisions of this chapter provided that:
a1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where
by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application or the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located.
b2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land
is located.
c3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
d4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
e5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish
or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
f6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.
g7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 7
b. The board of zoning appeals may grant the variance requested and impose
conditions and safeguards as a condition to the variance to ensure compliance
with the conditions imposed and to protect adjacent properties.
***
c. If the application for a variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe
and floodplain district, then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be
forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10)
days of such action, and the following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied:
1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.
2. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of
good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a
determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is
the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
4. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall
notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct
a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for
flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and
2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to
life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all
variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its
annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Section6. Sec. 36-291. Purpose and intent.
(d) National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This Ordinance is adopted to comply with the
rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 8
Section 7. Sec. 36-292. Application of division provisions.
(a) Lands to which division applies. These floodplain regulations shall apply to all lands within the
jurisdiction of the city shown on the official zoning map as being located within the boundaries of
the floodway, flood fringe, or General floodplain districts. While this map shows the approximate
locations of the boundaries of the floodway, flood fringe, and floodplain districts, the final
location shall be determined by a topographic map, in comparison to the 100-year flood elevation
and other applicable hydraulic modeling data.
(b) Adoption of flood insurance study. The flood insurance study for the city prepared by the Federal
Insurance Administration dated June 17, 1986, and the flood boundary and floodway map and
flood insurance rate map dated June 17, 1986, are hereby adopted as part of this division by
reference.
The Official Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The attached material shall include the
Flood Insurance Study, Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota, All
Jurisdictions and the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels numbered 27053C0331E, 27053C0332E,
27053C0334E, 27053C0342E, 27053C0351E, 27053C0352E, 27053C0353E, 27053C0354E,
27053C0361E and 27053C0362E for the City of St. Louis Park, dated September 2, 2004, as
developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Official Zoning Map shall be on
file in the office of the Zoning Administrator.
***
(c) Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an
elevation no lower than two feet one foot above the elevation of a regional flood plus any
increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from
designation of a floodway.
***
(e) No stage increase permitted. No structure, fill, deposit, obstruction or storage of materials or
equipment shall be allowed in any floodway, flood fringe, or general floodplain district which
will cause any increase in the stage of the 100-year flood or will cause an increase in flood
damages in the reaches affected.
Section8. Sec. 36-293. Definitions.
Flood fringe means that portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous
with the term "floodway fringe" used in the flood insurance study for the city. It also includes all land
above the designated ordinary high-water level and below the regional flood elevation of all wetlands and
lakes where flood elevations have been established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 9
Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have
been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. It also includes all lands above the designated
ordinary high-water level, and below the flood elevation of all wetlands and lakes where flood elevations
have not been established by FEMA.
***
Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or
flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other
than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor.
***
Manufactured Homes means any manufactured home as defined in Section 36-4 of this ordinance except
that their shall be no size limitation on the structure.
***
Regulatory flood protection elevation means an elevation no lower than one foot two feet above the
elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the
floodplain that result from designation of a floodway.
***
Substantial Damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the
structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial Improvement within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation
(including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a
structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the
“start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred
“substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however,
include either:
(a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement
official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions.
(b) Any alteration of an “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the
structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure.” For the purpose of this Ordinance,
“historic structure” shall be as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1.
Section 9. Sec. 36-294. Establishment of zoning districts.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 10
(a) Districts. The following overlay districts are established for the purpose of regulating
development in flood hazard areas within the city:
(1) Floodway district (FW). The floodway district shall include those areas designated as
floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 36-292(b). flood boundary
and floodway map.
(2) Flood fringe district (FF). The flood fringe district shall include those areas designated
as floodway fringe on the flood boundary and floodway map adopted in section 36-
292(b). Flood Insurance Rate Map as adopted in Section 36-292(b) as being within Zone
AE or Zone AH but being located outside of the floodway.
(3) General floodplain district (FP). The general floodplain district shall include those areas
designated as unnumbered A zones Zone A or Zones AE, Zone A0, or Zone AH without
a floodway on the flood insurance rate map as adopted in Section 36-292(b).
(b) Compliance. Provisions for compliance are as follows:
(1) Recreational vehicles that do not meet the exemption criteria specified in Section 36-
294(b)(1)a below shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as specifically
spelled out in Sections 36-294(b)(1)c below.
a. Exemption - Recreational vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this
Ordinance if they are placed in any of the areas listed in Section 36-294(b)(1)b
below and further they meet the following criteria:
1. Have current licenses required for highway use.
2. Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking
system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type
utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle
parks and the recreational vehicle has no permanent structural type
additions attached to it.
3. The recreational vehicle and associated use must be permissible in
any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district.
b. Areas Exempted For Placement of Recreational Vehicles:
1. Individual lots or parcels of record.
2. Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds.
3. Existing condominium type associations.
c. Recreational vehicles exempted in Section 36-294(b)(1)a lose this exemption
when development occurs on the parcel exceeding $500 for a structural addition
to the recreational vehicle or exceeding $500 for an accessory structure such as a
garage or storage building. The recreational vehicle and all additions and
accessory structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall be subject to
the elevation/flood proofing requirements and the use of land restrictions
specified in Section 36-294(c) & Section 36-294(d) of this Ordinance. There
shall be no development or improvement on the parcel or attachment to the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 11
recreational vehicle that hinders the removal of the recreational vehicle to a flood
free location should flooding occur.
(1) New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes, travel trailers and travel
vehicles are prohibited in floodplain districts.
(2) Modifications, additions, structural alterations normal maintenance and repair, or repair
after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures
or land are regulated by the general provisions of this chapter.
(1) New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes, travel trailers and travel
vehicles are prohibited in floodplain districts.
***
(d) Flood fringe district (FF). Fill, dredge spoil, and all other similar materials deposited or stored in
the flood fringe district shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, rip rap or
other acceptable method.
***
(2) Standards for flood fringe permitted uses. Standards for flood fringe permitted uses are as
follows:
a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the
lowest floor including basement floor, is at or above the regulatory flood
protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower
than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill shall
extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure
erected thereon.
b. For all new structures constructed after June 15, 1998, the lowest floor building
opening elevations shall be no lower than two feet above the regulatory flood
protection 100-year flood elevation. For all structures existing on June 15, 1998,
and additions to structures existing on June 15, 1998, the lowest floor building
openings shall be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection
elevation. at one foot above the flood elevation.
c. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500
square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood
proofed in accordance with subsection (d)(3)b.1 & 2. of this section.
***
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 12
e. Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood proofed in the manner provided
in this section or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in
subsection (cd) of this section shall only be allowable as a conditional use.
***
(3) Standards for flood fringe conditional uses. Alternative elevation methods other than the
use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood
protection elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings and
parallel walls, or abovegrade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages.
The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered abovegrade and not a structure's
basement or lowest floor if the enclosed area is abovegrade on at least one side of the
structure; it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant
materials; and it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The
alternative elevation methods noted in this subsection (d)(3) are subject to the following
additional standards:
***
b. Specific standards for abovegrade, enclosed areas. Abovegrade, fully enclosed
areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally
flood and the design plans must stipulate:
1. The A minimum area of “automatic” openings in the walls where
internal flooding is to be used as a floodproofing technique. When
openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for entry of
floodwaters to equalize pressures, There shall be a minimum of two
openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all
openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The automatic
openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch
for every square foot subject to flooding unless a registered professional
engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. The
automatic oOpenings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or
other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters without any form of human intervention.
***
(4) Standards for all flood fringe uses. Standards for all flood fringe uses are as follows:
***
b. Commercial uses. Accessory land uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking
lots may be at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation.
However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general
public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides
adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and
velocity such that when multiplying the depth (in feet) times velocity (in feet per
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 13
second) the product number exceeds four (4) greater than two feet or be subject
to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of a regional
flood.
***
(e) General floodplain district (FP). Fill, dredge spoil, and all other similar materials deposited or
stored in the floodplain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, rip rap or
other acceptable method.
(1) Permissible uses. The uses listed in subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be permitted
uses. All other uses shall be subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria of
subsection (e)(2) of this section. Subsection (c) of this section shall apply if the proposed
use is in the floodway district and subsection (d) of this section shall apply if the
proposed use is in the flood fringe district.
(2) Procedures for floodway and flood fringe determinations within the general floodplain
district.
a. Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use permit for a use within the
FP district, the applicant shall be required to furnish such information deemed
necessary by the zoning administrator for the determination of the regulatory
flood protection elevation and whether the proposed use is within the floodway
or flood fringe district. This information may include the following:
***
3. A typical valley cross-section(s) showing the channel of the stream,
elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional
areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and high water
information.
4. Photographs showing existing land uses, vegetation upstream and
downstream, and soil types.
5. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the
stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed
development.
b. The applicant shall submit one copy of the information in subsection (e)(2)a. of
this section to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for
technical assistance to determine whether the proposed use is in the floodway or
flood fringe district and to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation.
Procedures consistent with Minnesota Regulations 1983, parts
6120.5000--6120.6200 shall be followed in this expert evaluation. The
designated engineer or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed
technical evaluation methodology with the department of natural resources' area
hydrologist prior to commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert
shall:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 14
***
3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood
without increasing flood stages. more than 0.5 foot. A lesser stage
increase than 0.5 foot shall be required if, as a result of the additional
stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of
encroachment shall be assumed in computing floodway boundaries.
(f) Factors for conditional use approval. The factors upon which the decision of the city council
shall be based when considering conditional use applications are as follows:
(1) Hearings. Upon filing for an application for a conditional use permit, the Zoning
Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of
the application for proposed conditional use sufficiently in advance so that the
Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing.
(2) Decisions. In granting a conditional use permit the city council shall prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in Section 36-
294(f)(4), which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of
such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the
conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance
punishable under Section 36-300. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use
permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten
(10) days of such action.
(3) The factors upon which the decision of the city council shall be based when considering
conditional use applications are as follows:
(1)a. All relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter division.
(2)b. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by
encroachments.
(3)c. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of
others or they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures.
(4)d. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to
prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions.
(5)e. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect
of such damage on the individual owner.
(6)f. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community.
(7)g. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
(8)h. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 15
(9)i. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and the development
anticipated in the foreseeable future.
(10)j. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for the area.
(11)k. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles.
(12)l. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
floodwaters expected at the site.
(13)m. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this division.
(4) Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed
above and the purpose of this Ordinance, the city council shall attach such conditions to the
granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this
Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities.
(b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation.
(c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions.
(d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes,
levees, and other protective measures.
(e) Flood proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance.
The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional
engineer or architect that the flood proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory
flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area.
Section 10. Sec. 36-295. Application to subdivision.
(a) No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable because of flooding, inadequate drainage, water
supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the floodplain districts shall contain a
building site at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have
water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this division and have
road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet
below the regulatory flood protection elevation. For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the
floodway and flood fringe boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required
elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and
platting documents.
(b) Floodway/Flood Fringe Determinations in the General Flood Plain District: In the General Flood
Plain District, applicants shall provide the information required in Section 294(e)(2) of this
Ordinance to determine the 100-year flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District
boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site.
(c) Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 16
for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100-year flood elevation. FEMA's
requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-
structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation
of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested.
Section 11. Sec. 36-296. Public facilities.
(c) On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided:
1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges
from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination
during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's
current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in
compliance with this Section.
Section 12. Sec. 36-297. Certification and record.
(a) Permit required. A permit issued by the zoning administrator which conforms to the provisions of
this chapter shall be secured prior to the following:
(1) Erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and
repair), or alteration of any building, structure or portion thereof;
***
(3) Change or extension of a nonconforming use; and
***
(5) Construction of a dam, septic system or fence; and
(6) Repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source.
***
(g) Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. The Zoning Administrator shall notify, in riverine
situations, adjacent communities and the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources
prior to the community authorizing any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. If the applicant
has applied for a permit to work in the beds of public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute,
Chapter 103G, this shall suffice as adequate notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. A
copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
(h) Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease the 100-year Flood
Elevation. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six (6) months after the date such
supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the Chicago
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 17
Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of said technical or scientific
data.
Section 13. Sec. 36-298. Nonconformities--Compliance with chapter.
(a) A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or
amendment of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived but which does not conform to
the provisions of this chapter may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic
structures, as defined in Section 36-293(b) of this Ordinance, shall be subject to the provisions of
Sections 36-298(a)(1) – (4) of this Ordinance.
***
(2) Any structural alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use
which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall
be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in a manner permitted in the state
building code, except as further restricted in subsection (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this section.
***
(4) If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an
extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction substantially
damaged, as defined in Section 36-293 of this Ordinance, it shall not be reconstructed
except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new structures will apply depending upon whether the use or
structure is in the floodway, flood fringe or general floodplain district.
(5) If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 36-293 of this Ordinance, from
any combination of a building addition to the outside dimensions of the existing building
or a rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the inside
dimensions of an existing nonconforming building, then the building addition (as
required by Section 36-298(a)(2) above) and the existing nonconforming building must
meet the requirements of Section 36-294(c) or 36-294(d) of this Ordinance for new
structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe
District, respectively.
Section 14. Sec. 36-299. Amendments.
(a) The floodplain designation on the official zoning map shall not be removed from floodplain areas
unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above
the elevation of the regional flood regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands
outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the commissioner of
natural resources if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected
for the intended use.
Section 15. Sec. 36-300. Penalties for violation.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 18
Sec. 36-300. Penalties for violation.
(a) Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or
conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law.
(b) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is necessary
to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to:
(1) In responding to a suspected Ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and Local
Government may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not
limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective
measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance
availability to the guilty party. The Community must act in good faith to enforce these official
controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its
eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(2) When an Ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning
Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and
document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably
possible, this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural
Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the
Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible.
(3) The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this
Ordinance and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of
these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning
Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper
permit or approval is granted by the Community. If the construction or development is already
completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either: (1) issue an order identifying the
corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure
into compliance with the official controls; or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an
after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30-
days.
(4) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the
specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation
of this Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also
upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the landowner to restore the land to the
condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance.
Section 16. Secs 36-300 301-320. Reserved.
Section 17. Section 36-33
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 19
(d) Variances; limitations. The board of zoning appeals may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the
variances granted in cases where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, shape of a lot,
exceptional topographical or water conditions, or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions
of the lot, the strict application of the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship to the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible in the use district in which such lot is located.
Applications for variances shall be filed with the director of planning and shall describe the
exceptional conditions of the lot and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for
the variance.
(1) Applications. All applications for variances shall be initiated by, or with the consent of,
the owners of the property. A complete application shall consist of:
a. An application form.
b. The fee payment.
c. A survey of the property showing all property lines, structures and easements.
d. A plan showing all existing and proposed structures.
e. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for variance and all lands within 350
feet of the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners
of the lands in the area as they appear on the records of the county auditor or
other appropriate records.
f. Any other materials required by the city.
Before a variance request is approved, the request for the variance shall be considered by
the board of zoning appeals. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of all applicable state
law.
(2) Consideration by the planning commission. Before the board of zoning appeals issues
any variance, the planning commission or a representative authorized by the planning
commission shall review the variance request and report its findings and
recommendations to the board of zoning appeals. If no report is transmitted to the board
of zoning appeals within 45 days after referral of the variance request to the planning
commission or its authorized representative, the board of zoning appeals may take action
without a planning commission report.
(3) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public
hearing before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request within 45 days after
the application for a variance is received by the city. The public hearing shall be held
only after the notice required by subsection (b)(1) of this section has been given. The
Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a
copy of the application for proposed variance(s) occurring within a floodway, flood
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 20
fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive
at least ten days notice of the hearing.
***
(5) Issuance. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character
and development of the neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area,
and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. The board of
zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this
chapter provided that:
a. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of
the provisions of this chapter provided that:
a1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where
by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application or the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located.
b2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land
is located.
c3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
d4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
e5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish
or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
f6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.
g7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 21
b. The board of zoning appeals may grant the variance requested and impose
conditions and safeguards as a condition to the variance to ensure compliance
with the conditions imposed and to protect adjacent properties.
c. If the application for a variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe
and floodplain district, then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be
forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10)
days of such action, and the following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied:
1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.
2. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of
good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a
determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is
the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
4. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall
notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct
a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for
flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and
2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to
life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all
variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its
annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Section 18. The contents of the Planning Case File No. 04-35-ZA is hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 19. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 22
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2004, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:___________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 23
Attachment #2
FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT ORDINANCE SHOWING EDITS
DIVISION 8. FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS
Sec. 36-291. Purpose and intent.
(a) It is the purpose of this division to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to
minimize those losses described in this subsection (b) of this section by the provisions contained
in this division.
(b) The flood hazard areas of the city are subject to periodic inundation which results in potential loss
of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and government
services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the
tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare.
(c) This division is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent
with the standards established by the state department of natural resources.
(d) National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This Ordinance is adopted to comply with the
rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.1)
Sec. 36-292. Application of division provisions.
(a) Lands to which division applies. These floodplain regulations shall apply to all lands within the
jurisdiction of the city shown on the official zoning map as being located within the boundaries of
the floodway, flood fringe, or General floodplain districts. While this map shows the approximate
locations of the boundaries of the floodway, flood fringe, and floodplain districts, the final
location shall be determined by a topographic map, in comparison to the 100-year flood elevation
and other applicable hydraulic modeling data.
(b) Adoption of flood insurance study. The flood insurance study for the city prepared by the Federal
Insurance Administration dated June 17, 1986, and the flood boundary and floodway map and
flood insurance rate map dated June 17, 1986, are hereby adopted as part of this division by
reference.
The Official Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The attached material shall include the
Flood Insurance Study, Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota, All
Jurisdictions and the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels numbered 27053C0331E, 27053C0332E,
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 24
27053C0334E, 27053C0342E, 27053C0351E, 27053C0352E, 27053C0353E, 27053C0354E,
27053C0361E and 27053C0362E for the City of St. Louis Park, dated September 2, 2004, as
developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Official Zoning Map shall be on
file in the office of the Zoning Administrator.
(c) Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an
elevation no lower than two feet one foot above the elevation of a regional flood plus any
increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from
designation of a floodway.
(d) Warning and disclaimer of liability. This division does not imply that areas outside the floodplain
districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages.
This division shall not create liability on the part of the city or any of its officers or employees for
any flood damages that result from reliance on this division or any administrative decision made
thereunder.
(e) No stage increase permitted. No structure, fill, deposit, obstruction or storage of materials or
equipment shall be allowed in any floodway, flood fringe, or general floodplain district which
will cause any increase in the stage of the 100-year flood or will cause an increase in flood
damages in the reaches affected.
(f) Compensating storage. The city may approve such structure, fill, deposit, obstruction or storage
of materials or equipment if it otherwise complies with the provisions of this chapter and
provision is made for compensating storage of floodwaters displaced by the activity listed in this
subsection (f). Such compensating storage shall be located where it will achieve the goal of
eliminating a stage increase. The area where the compensating storage is proposed shall be an
area which was outside the 100-year flood zone before development as compensating storage.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.2)
Sec. 36-293. Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply only to the application and enforcement of the floodplain district
regulations. If any of the words defined are used elsewhere in this chapter, their meaning shall be those
assigned by section 36-4.
Basement means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade below
ground level on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level.
Equal degree of encroachment means a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so
that floodplain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood
flows.
Flood means a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that
results in the inundation of normally dry areas.
Flood frequency means the frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may
be equaled or exceeded.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 25
Flood fringe means that portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous
with the term "floodway fringe" used in the flood insurance study for the city. It also includes all land
above the designated ordinary high-water level and below the regional flood elevation of all wetlands and
lakes where flood elevations have been established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have
been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. It also includes all lands above the designated
ordinary high-water level, and below the flood elevation of all wetlands and lakes where flood elevations
have not been established by FEMA.
Floodproofing means a combination of structural provisions, changes or adjustments to properties and
structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages.
Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the
adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge.
Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or
flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other
than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor.
Manufactured Homes means any manufactured home as defined in Section 36-4 of this ordinance except
that their shall be no size limitation on the structure.
Obstruction means any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection,
excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure or matter
in, along, across or projecting into any channel, watercourse or regulatory floodplain which may impede,
retard or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris
carried by such water.
Reach means a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river
influenced by a natural or manmade obstruction. The segment of a stream between two consecutive
bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach.
Regional flood means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in
the state and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the
magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood"
used in the flood insurance study.
Regulatory flood protection elevation means an elevation no lower than one foot two feet above the
elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the
floodplain that result from designation of a floodway.
Structure means anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site
utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured
homes or other similar items.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 26
Substantial Damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the
structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial Improvement within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation
(including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a
structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the
“start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred
“substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however,
include either:
(a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement
official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions.
(b) Any alteration of an “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the
structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure.” For the purpose of this Ordinance,
“historic structure” shall be as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.3)
Cross reference(s)--Definitions generally, § 1-2.
Sec. 36-294. Establishment of zoning districts.
(a) Districts. The following overlay districts are established for the purpose of regulating
development in flood hazard areas within the city:
(1) Floodway district (FW). The floodway district shall include those areas designated as
floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 36-292(b). flood boundary
and floodway map.
(2) Flood fringe district (FF). The flood fringe district shall include those areas designated
as floodway fringe on the flood boundary and floodway map adopted in section 36-
292(b). Flood Insurance Rate Map as adopted in Section 36-292(b) as being within Zone
AE or Zone AH but being located outside of the floodway.
(3) General floodplain district (FP). The general floodplain district shall include those areas
designated as unnumbered A zones Zone A or Zones AE, Zone A0, or Zone AH without
a floodway on the flood insurance rate map as adopted in Section 36-292(b).
(b) Compliance. Provisions for compliance are as follows:
(1) Recreational vehicles that do not meet the exemption criteria specified in Section 36-
294(b)(1)a below shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as specifically
spelled out in Sections 36-294(b)(1)c below.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 27
a. Exemption - Recreational vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this
Ordinance if they are placed in any of the areas listed in Section 36-294(b)(1)b
below and further they meet the following criteria:
1. Have current licenses required for highway use.
2. Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking
system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type
utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle
parks and the recreational vehicle has no permanent structural type
additions attached to it.
3. The recreational vehicle and associated use must be permissible in
any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district.
b. Areas Exempted For Placement of Recreational Vehicles:
1. Individual lots or parcels of record.
2. Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds.
3. Existing condominium type associations.
c. Recreational vehicles exempted in Section 36-294(b)(1)a lose this exemption
when development occurs on the parcel exceeding $500 for a structural addition
to the recreational vehicle or exceeding $500 for an accessory structure such as a
garage or storage building. The recreational vehicle and all additions and
accessory structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall be subject to
the elevation/flood proofing requirements and the use of land restrictions
specified in Section 36-294(c) & Section 36-294(d) of this Ordinance. There
shall be no development or improvement on the parcel or attachment to the
recreational vehicle that hinders the removal of the recreational vehicle to a flood
free location should flooding occur.
(1) New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes, travel trailers and travel
vehicles are prohibited in floodplain districts.
(2) Modifications, additions, structural alterations normal maintenance and repair, or repair
after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures
or land are regulated by the general provisions of this chapter.
(c) Floodway district (FW). Within the floodway district, all uses not listed as permitted uses or
conditional uses shall be prohibited. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no
structure shall be located, extended, converted or structurally altered without full compliance with
the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the
jurisdiction of this chapter.
(1) Permitted uses. The permitted uses in the floodway districts, if also permitted in the
underlying zoning district, are as follows:
a. Outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop
harvesting.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 28
b. Private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges,
picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and
nature preserves, fish hatcheries, fishing areas, and single-purpose or multiple-
purpose recreational trails.
c. Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas and play areas.
(2) Standards for floodway permitted uses. The standards for floodway permitted uses are as
follows:
a. The use shall have a low flood damage potential.
b. The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district.
c. The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not
involve structures, fill, obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or
equipment.
(3) Conditional uses. The following uses shall require a conditional use permit if located in
the FW district:
a. Docks, piers, wharves and water control structures.
b. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines.
c. Structural works for flood control such as levees, dikes and floodwalls,
constructed to any height where the intent is to protect individual structures for a
frequency flood event equal to or less than the ten-year frequency flood event.
(4) Standards for floodway conditional uses. The standards for floodway conditional uses are
as follows:
a. No structure, temporary or permanent, fill, including fill for roads and levees,
deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be
allowed as a conditional use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100-
year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reaches
affected.
b. The conditional use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district.
c. Any work which will change the course, current, or cross section of protected
wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of M.S.A. ch. 103G.
Any work below the ordinary high water level of a stream or waterbody shall
require a permit from the state department of natural resources. Communtywide
structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory
floodplain shall not be allowed in the floodway district.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 29
d. A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase
to the 100-year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal
conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream.
(5) Uses not permitted in the FW district. The uses not permitted in the FW district are as
follows:
a. Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall not be allowed in the
floodway district.
b. Accessory structures shall not be located in the floodway district.
c. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable,
explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited.
(d) Flood fringe district (FF). Fill, dredge spoil, and all other similar materials deposited or stored in
the flood fringe district shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, rip rap or
other acceptable method.
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as
"permitted uses" in the underlying use districts. All permitted uses shall comply with the
standards for flood fringe permitted uses.
(2) Standards for flood fringe permitted uses. Standards for flood fringe permitted uses are as
follows:
a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the
lowest floor including basement floor, is at or above the regulatory flood
protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower
than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill shall
extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure
erected thereon.
b. For all new structures constructed after June 15, 1998, the lowest floor building
opening elevations shall be no lower than two feet above the regulatory flood
protection 100-year flood elevation. For all structures existing on June 15, 1998,
and additions to structures existing on June 15, 1998, the lowest floor building
openings shall be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection
elevation. at one foot above the flood elevation.
c. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500
square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood
proofed in accordance with subsection (d)(3)b.1 & 2. of this section.
d. The cumulative placement of fill, the total amount of fill where at any one time in
excess of 400 cubic yards located on the parcel, shall be allowable only as a
conditional use unless such fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in
accordance with subsection (d)(2)a. of this section.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 30
e. Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood proofed in the manner provided
in this section or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in
subsection (cd) of this section shall only be allowable as a conditional use.
(3) Standards for flood fringe conditional uses. Alternative elevation methods other than the
use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood
protection elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings and
parallel walls, or abovegrade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages.
The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered abovegrade and not a structure's
basement or lowest floor if the enclosed area is abovegrade on at least one side of the
structure; it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant
materials; and it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The
alternative elevation methods noted in this subsection (d)(3) are subject to the following
additional standards:
a. Design and certification. The structure's design and as-built condition must be
certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as in compliance with
the general design standards of the state building code and, specifically, that all
electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities are at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or
are designed to prevent floodwater from entering or accumulating within these
components during times of flooding.
b. Specific standards for abovegrade, enclosed areas. Abovegrade, fully enclosed
areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally
flood and the design plans must stipulate:
1. The A minimum area of “automatic” openings in the walls where
internal flooding is to be used as a floodproofing technique. When
openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for entry of
floodwaters to equalize pressures, There shall be a minimum of two
openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all
openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The automatic
openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch
for every square foot subject to flooding unless a registered professional
engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. The
automatic oOpenings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or
other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters without any form of human intervention.
2. That the enclosed area will be designed of flood-resistant materials as
required by the FP-3 or FP-4 classifications in the state building code and
shall be used solely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage.
c. Basements. Basements, as defined by section 36-293, shall be subject to the
following:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 31
1. Residential basement construction shall not be allowed below the
regulatory flood protection elevation.
2. Nonresidential basements may be allowed below the regulatory flood
protection elevation if the basement is structurally dry floodproofed in a
manner specified in subsection (d)(3)d. of this section.
d. Structurally dry floodproofing. All areas of nonresidential structures including
basements placed below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be
floodproofed in a manner provided in the structurally dry floodproofing
classifications in the state building code. Structurally dry floodproofing must
meet the FP-1 or FP-2 floodproofing classification in the state building code and
this shall require making the structure watertight with the walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the
capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of
buoyancy. Structures floodproofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be
permitted.
e. Erosion/sedimentation control plan. When at any one time more than 400 cubic
yards of fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for such activities as
on-site storage, landscaping, sand and gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge
spoil disposal or construction of flood control works, an erosion/sedimentation
control plan must be submitted. The plan must clearly specify methods to be used
to stabilize the fill on the site for a flood event at a minimum of the 100-year or
regional flood event. The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered
professional engineer or other qualified individual acceptable to the city. The
plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the
floodplain if adequate flood warning time exists.
f. Storage of materials and equipment.
1. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding,
flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant
life is prohibited.
2. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily
removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning
and in a manner required by a plan approved by the city.
(4) Standards for all flood fringe uses. Standards for all flood fringe uses are as follows:
a. Vehicular access. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or
above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection
elevation.
b. Commercial uses. Accessory land uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking
lots may be at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation.
However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general
public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 32
adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and
velocity such that when multiplying the depth (in feet) times velocity (in feet per
second) the product number exceeds four (4) greater than two feet or be subject
to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of a regional
flood.
c. Manufacturing and industrial uses. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and
parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in
subsection (d)(4)b. of this section. In considering permit applications,
consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that
it be located in floodplain areas.
d. Compacted fill; protected slopes. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes
shall be properly protected by the use of rip rap, vegetative cover or other
acceptable methods. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for
certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100-year flood elevation.
FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope
protection standards for multistructure or multilot developments. These standards
should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of
special flood hazard area designation will be requested.
e. Hydraulic capacity. Floodplain developments shall not adversely affect the
hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary
watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit
has not been specified on the official zoning map.
f. Anchoring. All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately
anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement.
Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or
frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state
or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces.
(e) General floodplain district (FP). Fill, dredge spoil, and all other similar materials deposited or
stored in the floodplain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, rip rap or
other acceptable method.
(1) Permissible uses. The uses listed in subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be permitted
uses. All other uses shall be subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria of
subsection (e)(2) of this section. Subsection (c) of this section shall apply if the proposed
use is in the floodway district and subsection (d) of this section shall apply if the
proposed use is in the flood fringe district.
(2) Procedures for floodway and flood fringe determinations within the general floodplain
district.
a. Upon receipt of an application for a conditional use permit for a use within the
FP district, the applicant shall be required to furnish such information deemed
necessary by the zoning administrator for the determination of the regulatory
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 33
flood protection elevation and whether the proposed use is within the floodway
or flood fringe district. This information may include the following:
1. A plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground;
pertinent structure, fill or storage elevations; size, location and spatial
arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site; and the
location and elevations of streets.
2. The drainage area contributing to the waterbody and existing type and
level of development in the drainage area.
3. A typical valley cross-section(s) showing the channel of the stream,
elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional
areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and high water
information.
4. Photographs showing existing land uses, vegetation upstream and
downstream, and soil types.
5. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the
stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed
development.
b. The applicant shall submit one copy of the information in subsection (e)(2)a. of
this section to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for
technical assistance to determine whether the proposed use is in the floodway or
flood fringe district and to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation.
Procedures consistent with Minnesota Regulations 1983, parts
6120.5000--6120.6200 shall be followed in this expert evaluation. The
designated engineer or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed
technical evaluation methodology with the department of natural resources' area
hydrologist prior to commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert
shall:
1. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood.
2. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a
hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas.
3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood
without increasing flood stages. more than 0.5 foot. A lesser stage
increase than 0.5 foot shall be required if, as a result of the additional
stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of
encroachment shall be assumed in computing floodway boundaries.
c. The zoning administrator shall present the technical evaluation and findings of
the designated engineer or expert to the city council. The city council may
formally accept the technical evaluation and the recommended floodway and
flood fringe district boundary or deny the permit application. The city council,
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 34
prior to official action, may submit the application and all supporting data and
analyses to the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the department of
natural resources for review and comment. Once the floodway and flood fringe
boundaries have been determined, the city council shall refer the matter back to
the zoning administrator who shall process the permit application consistent with
the applicable provisions of this division.
(f) Factors for conditional use approval. The factors upon which the decision of the city council
shall be based when considering conditional use applications are as follows:
(1) Hearings. Upon filing for an application for a conditional use permit, the Zoning
Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of
the application for proposed conditional use sufficiently in advance so that the
Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing.
(2) Decisions. In granting a conditional use permit the city council shall prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in Section 36-
294(f)(4), which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of
such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the
conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance
punishable under Section 36-300. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use
permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten
(10) days of such action.
(3) The factors upon which the decision of the city council shall be based when considering
conditional use applications are as follows:
(1)a. All relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter division.
(2)b. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by
encroachments.
(3)c. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of
others or they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures.
(4)d. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to
prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions.
(5)e. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect
of such damage on the individual owner.
(6)f. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community.
(7)g. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
(8)h. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use.
(9)i. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and the development
anticipated in the foreseeable future.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 35
(10)j. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for the area.
(11)k. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles.
(12)l. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
floodwaters expected at the site.
(13)m. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this division.
(4) Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed
above and the purpose of this Ordinance, the city council shall attach such conditions to the
granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this
Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities.
(b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation.
(c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions.
(d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes,
levees, and other protective measures.
(e) Flood proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance.
The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional
engineer or architect that the flood proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory
flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.4)
Sec. 36-295. Application to subdivision.
(a) No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable because of flooding, inadequate drainage, water
supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the floodplain districts shall contain a
building site at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have
water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this division and have
road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet
below the regulatory flood protection elevation. For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the
floodway and flood fringe boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required
elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and
platting documents.
(b) Floodway/Flood Fringe Determinations in the General Flood Plain District: In the General Flood
Plain District, applicants shall provide the information required in Section 294(e)(2) of this
Ordinance to determine the 100-year flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District
boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 36
(c) Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation
for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100-year flood elevation. FEMA's
requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-
structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation
of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.5)
Sec. 36-296. Public facilities.
(a) Generally. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer and water supply
systems to be located in the floodplain shall be floodproofed in a manner required by the state
building code or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
(b) Public transportation facilities. Railroad tracks, roads and bridges to be located within the
floodplain shall comply with this division. Elevation to the regulatory flood protection elevation
shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in
danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly
functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower
elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public
health or safety.
(c) On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided:
1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges
from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination
during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's
current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in
compliance with this Section.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.6)
Sec. 36-297. Certification and record.
(a) Permit required. A permit issued by the zoning administrator which conforms to the provisions of
this chapter shall be secured prior to the following:
(1) Erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and
repair), or alteration of any building, structure or portion thereof;
(2) Use or change of use of a building, structure or land;
(3) Change or extension of a nonconforming use; and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 37
(4) Placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or equipment within
the floodplain;
(5) Construction of a dam, septic system or fence; and
(6) Repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source.
(b) Application for permit. Application for a permit shall be made in duplicate to the zoning
administrator on forms furnished by the zoning administrator and shall include the following,
where applicable:
(1) Plans in duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions and
elevations of the lot;
(2) Existing or proposed structures, fill or storage of materials; and
(3) The location of the items listed in subsection (b)(2) of this section in relation to the
stream channel or waterbody.
(c) State and federal permits. Prior to granting a permit or processing an application for a conditional
use permit or variance, the zoning administrator shall determine that the applicant has obtained all
necessary state and federal permits.
(d) Certificate of zoning compliance for a new, altered or nonconforming use. It shall be unlawful to
use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part of any building or
premises hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered or enlarged in its use or structure
until a certificate of zoning compliance shall have been issued by the zoning administrator stating
that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this division.
(e) Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional
engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building
elevations were accomplished in the manner required by the provisions of this division.
Floodproofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered
architect.
(f) Record of first-floor elevation. The zoning administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation
of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new structures and alterations or additions to
existing structures in the floodplain. The zoning administrator shall also maintain a record of the
elevation to which structures or alterations and additions to structures are floodproofed.
(g) Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. The Zoning Administrator shall notify, in riverine
situations, adjacent communities and the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources
prior to the community authorizing any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. If the applicant
has applied for a permit to work in the beds of public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute,
Chapter 103G, this shall suffice as adequate notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. A
copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 38
(h) Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease the 100-year Flood
Elevation. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six (6) months after the date such
supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator shall notify the Chicago
Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of said technical or scientific
data.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.7)
Sec. 36-298. Nonconformities--Compliance with chapter.
(a) A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or
amendment of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived but which does not conform to
the provisions of this chapter may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic
structures, as defined in Section 36-293(b) of this Ordinance, shall be subject to the provisions of
Sections 36-298(a)(1) – (4) of this Ordinance.
(1) No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its
nonconformity.
(2) Any structural alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use
which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall
be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in a manner permitted in the state
building code, except as further restricted in subsection (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this section.
(3) The cost of any structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over
the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure
unless the conditions of this section are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and
additions constructed since the adoption of the city's initial floodplain controls must be
calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction
materials and a reasonable cost placed on all labor. If the current cost of all previous and
proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the
structure, then the structure must meet the standards of this chapter for new structure.
(4) If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an
extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction substantially
damaged, as defined in Section 36-293 of this Ordinance, it shall not be reconstructed
except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new structures will apply depending upon whether the use or
structure is in the floodway, flood fringe or general floodplain district.
(5) If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 36-293 of this
Ordinance, from any combination of a building addition to the outside dimensions of the
existing building or a rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to
the inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming building, then the building addition
(as required by Section 36-298(a)(2) above) and the existing nonconforming building
must meet the requirements of Section 36-294(c) or 36-294(d) of this Ordinance for new
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 39
structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe
District, respectively.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-9.8)
Sec. 36-299. Amendments.
(a) The floodplain designation on the official zoning map shall not be removed from floodplain areas
unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above
the elevation of the regional flood regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands
outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the commissioner of
natural resources if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected
for the intended use.
(b) All amendments to this chapter, including amendments to the official zoning map, shall be
submitted to and approved by the commissioner of natural resources prior to adoption. Changes
in the official zoning map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's technical
conditions and criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The
commissioner of natural resources must be given ten days written notice of all hearings to
consider an amendment to this chapter and such notice shall include a draft of the amendment or
technical study under consideration.
Sec. 36-300. Penalties for violation.
(a) Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or
conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law.
(b) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is necessary
to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to:
(1) In responding to a suspected Ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and Local
Government may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not
limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective
measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance
availability to the guilty party. The Community must act in good faith to enforce these official
controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its
eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(2) When an Ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning
Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and
document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably
possible, this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural
Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the
Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 40
(3) The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this
Ordinance and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of
these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning
Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper
permit or approval is granted by the Community. If the construction or development is already
completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either: (1) issue an order identifying the
corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure
into compliance with the official controls; or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an
after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30-
days.
(4) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the
specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation
of this Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also
upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the landowner to restore the land to the
condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance.
Secs 36-300 301-320. Reserved.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 41
Section 36-33
(d) Variances; limitations. The board of zoning appeals may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the
variances granted in cases where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, shape of a lot,
exceptional topographical or water conditions, or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions
of the lot, the strict application of the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship to the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible in the use district in which such lot is located.
Applications for variances shall be filed with the director of planning and shall describe the
exceptional conditions of the lot and the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basis for
the variance.
(1) Applications. All applications for variances shall be initiated by, or with the consent of,
the owners of the property. A complete application shall consist of:
a. An application form.
b. The fee payment.
c. A survey of the property showing all property lines, structures and easements.
d. A plan showing all existing and proposed structures.
e. A map or plat showing the lands proposed for variance and all lands within 350
feet of the boundaries of that property and the names and addresses of the owners
of the lands in the area as they appear on the records of the county auditor or
other appropriate records.
f. Any other materials required by the city.
Before a variance request is approved, the request for the variance shall be considered by
the board of zoning appeals. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of all applicable state
law.
(2) Consideration by the planning commission. Before the board of zoning appeals issues
any variance, the planning commission or a representative authorized by the planning
commission shall review the variance request and report its findings and
recommendations to the board of zoning appeals. If no report is transmitted to the board
of zoning appeals within 45 days after referral of the variance request to the planning
commission or its authorized representative, the board of zoning appeals may take action
without a planning commission report.
(3) Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the city shall set a date for a public
hearing before the board of zoning appeals for any variance request within 45 days after
the application for a variance is received by the city. The public hearing shall be held
only after the notice required by subsection (b)(1) of this section has been given. The
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 42
Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a
copy of the application for proposed variance(s) occurring within a floodway, flood
fringe or floodplain district sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive
at least ten days notice of the hearing.
(4) Hearings. The board of zoning appeals shall hear arguments at the hearing for and
against the proposed variance and it may continue that hearing from time to time if a
continued hearing is reasonably required. Final vote on the proposed variance shall be
taken within 30 days after the public hearing is closed.
(5) Issuance. The board of zoning appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to public safety, the effect on the character
and development of the neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area,
and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. The board of
zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of this
chapter provided that:
a. The board of zoning appeals may grant a variance from the strict application of
the provisions of this chapter provided that:
a1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where
by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application or the terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located.
b2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the use district in which the land
is located.
c3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
d4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
e5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish
or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
f6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
080204 - 8d - Floodplain Zoning Amendments
Page 43
g7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
b. The board of zoning appeals may grant the variance requested and impose
conditions and safeguards as a condition to the variance to ensure compliance
with the conditions imposed and to protect adjacent properties.
c. If the application for a variance involves property within a floodway, flood fringe
and floodplain district, then a copy of all decisions granting variances shall be
forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10)
days of such action, and the following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must also be satisfied:
1. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.
2. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of
good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a
determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is
the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
4. No variance shall allow a lower degree of flood protection than the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
d. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall
notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct
a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for
flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and
2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to
life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all
variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its
annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood
Insurance Program.