Loading...
2019/04/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA APRIL 8, 2019 6:15 p.m. CONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION (LBAE) - Council chambers 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community room Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Community center project 3. 7:35 p.m. Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements 4. 8:20 p.m. Planning commission annual work plan 5. 8:50 p.m. 2019 Connect the Park update – Dakota/Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000) 9:35 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 9:40 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 6. Proposed property acquisition - 5643 Minnetonka Boulevard 7. Zero waste packaging ordinance amendment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Executive summary Title: 2019 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization Recommended action: Mayor to convene the meeting; the following agenda is suggested. 1.Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization 2.Roll call of boardmembers – declaration of quorum 3.Motion to appoint chair 4.Acknowledgement of trained member (Miller & Rog) 5.a. Accept roster of appellants b.Call for any additional appellants c.Motion to close roster of appellants (subject to DOR instructions) 6.Motion to set date and time for continued proceedings (reconvene) Suggested as April 22, 2019 prior to study session 7.Instruct assessor to: a.Inform appellants of reconvene date & board process via telephone and mail b. Inform appellants of the county board application date (May 22 requested) c. Re-inspect and re-appraise parcels under appeal 8.Completion of the local board certification form 9.Motion to Recess Policy consideration: Local boards and/or open book meetings are required by law. The board must complete its business within 20 days (April 8 is day one, April 27 is therefore the deadline). Summary: Minnesota statute requires that all properties are valued at full market value. All property owners, tenants and those having an interest in real property are entitled to appeal their classification and market value. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the property. The market value is an opinion based on records maintained for every property and the market conditions as of the date of assessment (January 2). In most jurisdictions and following our historic practice, the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization is accomplished in two meetings. The first meeting is used to convene the Board, set the board process, accept the roster of appeals and announce that appeals are resolved at the reconvene meeting. The second meeting (reconvene) is used to hear and decide the merit of each appeal. The local board process depends on active participation from all parties involved including the board members, the property owner and assessing staff. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable for budgeting from the perspective of the taxing jurisdictions. Changes made by the board may affect the property owner’s share of the total property tax budget levy in the Pay 2020 tax period. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Summary of duties and responsibilities Sample letter – to be sent to each appellant on April 9 Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting of April 8, 2019 Page 2 Title: 2019 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization Summary of duties and responsibilities Local Board of Appeal andEqualization Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are statutory, primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01. •The valuation notices shall be in writing and be sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar days before the meeting of the board. The valuation notice will include the dates, places and times set for the meetings of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization as well as the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. •The city clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting. The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 including reconvene meetings. The board must complete its work and adjourn within 20 calendar days – convene date is day one. •The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official public meeting similar to a city council public hearing and cannot convene without a quorum. The local assessor, the county assessor, or one of his/her assistants is required to attend. •At least one member present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization must be certified as having completed the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MN DOR) Board of Appeal and Equalization training. Training is good for four board years as listed on the MN DOR record. •The board should run the meeting as a fair and impartial review of the appeals. The property owner is the appellant and the assessing staff act as the respondent. The board may ask questions to clarify facts and background on the appeal. It is suggested that all appeals are heard before the board begins deliberations on each. •Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly valued and classified for the current assessment year only. The board does not have the authority to reopen prior assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board may add a property to the assessment roll if it has been omitted. •Individual board members cannot participate in actions or discussions of appeals involving their own property, property of relatives, or property in which they have a financial interest. •The local board may not increase or decrease all assessments in a district of a given class of property. Changes by class may be made by the County Board of Equalization. •The local board may not make a market value or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. •Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or decrease individual assessments, the total of such adjustment must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. If the total reductions would exceed one percent, none of the adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard to the one percent limitation. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting of April 8, 2019 Page 3 Title: 2019 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization •If an assessment was made after the local board meeting or if a taxpayer can establish not having received the notice of market value at least five days before the meeting, they can appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. •The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of the property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner must have the opportunity to appear before the board if they so wish. •The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues. Only the county assessor (and the tax court) has the authority to exempt property. They also have no jurisdiction over special programs for which an application process is required (Veterans Exclusion, Market Value Homestead Exclusion, Green Acres, etc.). •A taxpayer may appear in person, by council, or written communication to present his or her objection to the board. The focus of the appeal must center on the factors influencing the estimated market value or classification placed on the property. •All changes will be entered into the assessment record by the county assessor’s office. •Before adjourning, the local board should prepare an official list of the changes. The law requires that the changes be listed on a separate form. All assessments that have been increased or decreased should be shown on the form along with their market values. •Administrative Rules from the Department of Revenue beginning with the 2013 Local Board of Review: The assessor may not make administrative changes to the valuation or classification less than 10 days prior to the board. All contemplated changes should be brought to the board for review and approval. Each appeal must be ruled on separately. •Directive from the Department of Revenue beginning with the 2015 Local Board of Review: assessing staff from Hennepin County will attend Local Board meetings. •Directive from the Department of Revenue (April 2017) – the board is required to hear appeals from those who show up at the reconvene meeting. A comment: It has been the practice of the St. Louis Park Board to close the roster at the completion of the initial convene meeting date – the new DOR directive effectively eliminates roster closure until adjourned. To comply with the DOR directive it is recommended that the board decide last moment appeals on a case-by-case basis which may be as simple as acknowledging the appeal with no change to preserve the owner’s right to be eligible for the County Board. •Following each board meeting, a letter is sent to the owner of each property in appeal. The sample letter following the initial convene meeting is attached. •At the convene meeting on April 8, the board will be given two outlines to assist you in conducting an efficient and productive meeting. One will be the agenda as the board process is quite specific in format. The other will be the board roster which is updated at 4:30 pm. Further reference, if you desire, can be provided via the MN Department of Revenue Board Training Manual (2018 update). This manual gives considerably greater detail as to the process and role of the Board in the assessment process. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting of April 8, 2019 Page 4 Title: 2019 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization Sample letter to all board roster properties Address line 1 April 9, 2019 Address line 2 Address line 3 Re: St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization Subject Address Property ID #: xx-xxx-xx-xx-xxxx Dear : The Board convened on April 8 and the above-referenced property has been entered onto the appeal roster. You are receiving both a telephone call and this letter to inform you that the reconvene date has been scheduled for X:XX pm on April 22, 2019 in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Appeals will be heard at this meeting. The following are important for you to know: •The property owner may appear in person, by representative, and/or by written communication to the board. Assessing staff will visit with you or your representative to understand your perspective and explain our perspective as well. •If the assessing staff has not already inspected your property within the last year, they must complete an interior and exterior inspection to form the basis of a revaluation. Important: Refusing access precludes the board from taking action that would benefit the owner (MN statute 274.01). •Assessing staff will then complete their revaluation and contact you prior to the April 22 meeting to inform you of their conclusion. This is an important component of the Local board process. If the assessing staff and you as the owner can mutually agree to resolve the matter, the agreement will be reported to the board. While it is common that that the board ratifies mutual agreement, please note that the board is the decision maker on the issue. This method of resolution is often preferred by property owners as it is not necessary to speak before the board. •When agreement cannot be reached, the board hears the case. Past practice has been as follows: You, as the appellant, are allowed about 5-10 minutes to present information supporting your value position. The assessing staff, as the respondent, is allowed about 3-5 minutes to present information and their conclusion. The board hears the information and decides the market value and/or classification as of January 2, 2019. The board has full authority to sustain, increase, or decrease individual assessments. The board does not have authority to reopen prior assessments. The board does not have authority to change current and past real estate taxes. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting of April 8, 2019 Page 5 Title: 2019 St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization • The board appreciates receiving written information before the meeting. We strongly recommend fact based locally competitive market information pertaining directly to your property (competitive sales, appraisals, etc.). National or regional information, while interesting, may not correlate to this specific local market. The assessing staff prepares a written report on all parcels under appeal and submits it to the board prior to the meeting. If you would like your written documentation to be included in the board packet, please provide it to my office by 12:00 Noon on Wednesday April 17 to allow time for copying/scanning. Otherwise, please prepare ten (10) copies of your written materials to be brought to the board meeting on April 22. • Upon completion of the local board, you will be notified via letter of the board action. If you do not agree with the local board decision, you are eligible to attend the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization which convenes in June. An application to appear before the County Board is required by May 22, 2019. If you have any further questions on the Local Board process, do not hesitate to contact me directly. Cory Bultema, City Assessor Direct Dial 952-924-2536 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on April 22, 2019. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on April 22, 2019. Also attached to this report is: - Study session discussion topics and timeline Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – April 22, 2019 Study session discussion topics and timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Reviewed by: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning April 22, 2019. 5:30 p.m. – Groundbreaking for Westwood Hills Nature Center Interpretive Center Building 6:30 p.m. – Reconvene local board of appeal and equalization (LBAE) - Council chambers Immediately following the LBAE – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1.Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2.Parkway Commons – Community development (45 minutes) Review and discuss a preliminary development proposal from Sela Group LLC regarding the redevelopment of Phase II of Parkway 25 and additional properties along 31st Street. 3.Proposed C1 zoning district retail and service use restrictions – Community development (30 minutes) This item was discussed at the March 11, 2019 city council study session. The city council requested to continue the discussion of the planning commission recommendation, which included allowing certain uses up to 20,000 square feet in the C-1 District. 4.2019 work plan for environment and sustainability commission – Community development (30 minutes) The city council has requested a meeting with the chair of each board/commission to review 2019 work plans. The environment and sustainability commission chair and some of the commissioners will attend the study session on April 22 to discuss their 2019 work plan. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 5. Food security/access study update 6.SWLRT update Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning Study session discussion topics and timeline Discussion topic Comments Date Scheduled Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. April 8, 2019 Community center project 60 min. discussion scheduled April 8, 2019 C-1 zoning district retail and service use restrictions Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. Discussed 11/26/18; SS report 2/25/19; Discussed 3/11/19 –further discussion requested by council April 22, 2019 Ordinance regarding home occupations (Firearm sales) Discussed 5/21/18 & 7/23. Written report provided at 9/24 study session. PC currently reviewing ordinance options. Policy on city facilities adopted 10/15. Going to PC 1st reading May 6, 2019 Revitalization of Walker Lake area Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study update 8/27/18; SS report 2/11/19 May, 2019 Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6 and referred to HRC. HRC held comm. mtg. in Oct. Council/HRC discussion on 12/10; referred back to HRC for refinement of recommendations. May, 2019 Accessory dwelling units/home-based businesses June, 2019 Election holiday discussion 3rd Qtr. Crime free ordinance/affordable housing strategies Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing trust fund 10/1/18; Other affordable housing strategies/Crime Free Ordinance – Nov/Dec, 12/10 and 12/17/18 and 1/14/19 council discussion; Certain provisions of crime free ord. suspended; Work group being formed; CFO work group discussed on 3/25/2019 TBD; Pending workgroup recommendation Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD Easy access to nature, across city, starting with low-income neighborhoods TBD Westwood Hills Nature Center Access Fund *On hold pending discussion with school district. *On hold STEP discussion: facilities Discussed on 1/14/19; *On hold until community center is discussed. *On hold SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient cities initiative *On hold until Food Access and Security study is complete and recommendations have been made.*On hold Discuss Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18. Discussed at Jan. Retreat; discussed on 3/18/19 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Community center project Recommended action: This report has been prepared and the study session scheduled at the direction of the city council. Policy consideration: Staff requests further direction as to any additional measures or information the council wants staff to provide on this project. Summary: From 2005-2007 the City of St. Louis Park led a second community visioning process. One of the focus areas was to explore the creation of a multi-use civic center, which would include options for indoor and winter use. At the request of the city council in 2010, a community survey was conducted allowing residents to identify what they wanted in a community center facility. In 2012 a community task force was established to study the results of the survey and to identify sites for a potential community center. In 2013, a feasibility study was conducted which included a site analysis, operation analysis and the feasibility of amenities in the facility. In 2014, city council authorized staff to enter into the schematic design phase. The schematic design created a more accurate cost estimate and building renderings which helped gather more public input. The total estimated cost of the project in 2016 was approximately $48 million. The next step would have been to move into the Design Development phase. The project was stopped at this point due to the unknown financial resources needed for other projects, most notably Southwest Light Rail Transit. Financial or budget considerations: The cost associated with the planning to this point has been paid from the Park Improvement Fund (PIF). If the project moves forward in some fashion, it’s expected it would need to be funded by the issuance of GO Bonds. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Executive Summary 2.24 Report of findings (Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC) Final cost analysis report (Ballard King) Community center feasibility study (HGA) Schematic design report (HGA) Phased diagrams (HGA) Cost estimates (RJM) Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Discussion Background: Detailed below is a timeline of the community center project from the community survey process to schematic design phase. Preliminary Planning Community Survey 11/2010 – 2/2011 a.Findings i.During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park led a community visioning process. As a result, the city council developed four strategic directions. “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” was one of the strategic directions. From that strategic direction, one of the focus areas was to explore the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. From the visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on the topic. A survey was designed with input from the visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey were intended to be used to help determine priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation and civic facilities (see Executive Summary 2.24). ii.When the survey asked “What else, if anything, is missing in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park, that if present, would make the city a better place to live?” Four hundred sixty-one (461) people provided comments. The top themes were: 1.Indoor park with play & fitness areas; like Edinborough in Edina – 26.0%* 2.Ice rink-outdoor with warming house – 11.1% 3.Trails – in particular, north/south trails; connections in general – 9.3% 4.Multi-use domed facility with artificial turf – 8.5% 5.Better overall maintenance and quality of facilities – 7.1% 6.Indoor pool – 6.5% *When these comments are combined with those saying “indoor pool”, “true community center” and “track” the percentage increases to 35.8%. The survey was done by Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC for a cost of $8,750. Schoenbauer’s Report of Findings is attached. Results of Community Survey of Future Civic and/or Recreational Facilities Needs and Interests Presentation to city council February 28, 2011 by Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC Task Force A community task force was appointed by the city council from 2/27/12 – 10/31/12. The findings were as follows: b.Task Force preferred sites i.Rec Center/Wolfe Park ii.West of Excelsior & Grand iii.Carpenter Park iv.Southwest of Highway 100 and 36th St. v.Aquila Park tied with stadium field Area Page 3 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Staff hired Cunningham Group for a cost of $11,500 to assist with the task force. The following link includes the final report: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Final Report – presented to City Council workshop, November 13, 2012 Feasibility Study A site analysis was completed on 7/15/13. The finds concluded that the best location was on the Wolf Park/Rec Center site. The findings of the feasibility study are as follows: St. Louis Park Community Recreation Center – a community center with a gymnasium, indoor play structure, birthday party rooms, multipurpose community room with a serving kitchen, walking/jogging track, indoor leisure pool with zero depth entry, current channel, water features and lap lanes, game room, teen area, fitness center with cardiovascular and weight lifting area, aerobic room, child watch area, support offices, administration area and lobby. Approximately 90,000 square feet. Expenditures were formulated on the costs that were designated by Ballard King and Associates to be included in the operating budget for the facility. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility, and the hours of operation. All expenses were calculated to the high side and the actual cost may be less based on the final design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by the city. Ballard King & Associates - $4,304 Ballard King - Final cost analysis report (attached) Study Session Discussion Item, October 14, 2013 and Minutes Included in the design are initial estimates of square feet: •Gymnasium 14,300 nsf •Aquatics Center 16,610 nsf •Locker Rooms 5,400 nsf •Drop-in Childcare 1,830 nsf •Kids Play/Flex Area 2,800 nsf •Community Gathering Space 9,300 nsf •Fitness Program Spaces 17,040 nsf •Office and Program Support 1,090 nsf •Lobbies and Other 1,150 nsf •Building Services 1,220 nsf •Subtotal Net Square Feet 70,740 nsf •Non-assignable 33,289 nsf •Net to gross multiplier 1.47 •Total Area 104,029 gsf HGA - $44,650 + $3,500 additional Study Session Discussion Item, July 22, 2013: Community Center Final Report on Cost Estimate and Site Analysis and Minutes Feasibility Study from HGA (attached) Page 4 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Schematic Design a.RJM cost estimate 5/19/14 i.Proposal – never contracted b.HGA 6/1/14 – 11/25/14 i.Findings 1.LOBBY AND FRONT DESK 2.COMMONS AREA 3.COMMUNITY ROOM (250 seats) 4.CONCESSIONS 5.PARTY ROOM 6.OFFICE AND PROGRAM SUPPORT 7.INDOOR KID’S PLAY AREA 8.DROP-IN CHILD CARE 9.WOMENS LOCKER ROOM 10.MENS LOCKER ROOFAMILY LOCKER ROOM 11.LEISURE POOL 12.LAP POOL 13.GYMNASIUM 14.TRAINING DESK 15.LARGE STUDIO SPACE 16.MEDIUM STUDIO SPACE 17.SMALL STUDIO SPACE 18.CARDIO 19.CIRCUIT TRAINING 20.FREE WEIGHTS 21.RUNNING / WALKING TRACK (5 LAPS = 1 MILE) 22.BUILDING SERVICES 23.MECHANICAL 24.GREEN ROOF 25.RENOVATED HOCKEY ENTRANCE 26.ENTRY COURT w/ relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture 27.COMMUNITY TERRACE 28.WEST COURTYARD 29.PARKING STRUCTURE THREE LEVELS ABOVE GRADE = 688 STALLS 30.PARKING LOBBY 31.PARKING VEHICLE ENTRANCE $224,400 – contract amount Schematic Design Report, November 26, 2014 by HGA (attached) Phased Diagrams (attached) Study Session presentation, Oct. 27, 2014 and Minutes Page 5 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Additional expenses that were incurred during the planning phase: Sunde Land Surveying 7/7/14, to perform a partial boundary, topographic, location and utility survey for a potential new community center facility. $18,200 AET 8/21/14 – $113,316 Provide site exploration, geotechnical and environmental engineering services i.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ii.9/18/14 - Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment MPCA 4/25/15 – 7/31/15 - Phase II Investigation and Response Action Plan (RAP) services for potential new community center and outdoor recreation complex. Consultant (Bob DeGroot) 2/15 to work with MPCA $8,965 8/7/15 Voluntary Investigation Cleanup $3,562 Met Council Grant to pay for the MPCA investigation $50,000 Financial considerations: Estimated total dollar amount expended thus far = $386,727 With the exception of the revenue received from the Met Council grant of $50,000, the remainder of the money expended has come from the Park Improvement Fund. Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY SURVEY OF FUTURE CIVIC AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDS AND INTEREST Conducted by: Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5054 Drew Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 Kathy Schoenbauer, Co-Founder keschoenbauer@gmail.com Jeff Schoenbauer, Co-Founder jaschoenbauer@gmail.com February 2011 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 6 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background & Objectives The primary objective of the survey was to give all residents of the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond to a survey that would assist the City in determining top priorities for future civic and/or recreational facilities needs and interests. During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park was involved in a Visioning process. As a result, the City Council developed four Strategic Directions. One of the strategic directions was “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.” From that strategic direction, one of the focus areas was to explore the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. From the Visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on this topic. This survey was designed with input from the Visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey will be used to help determine priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation and civic facilities. The upcoming city-wide phone survey of residents may be used to further test some of the ideas that result from this survey. Methodology & Who Responded The survey was administered online and via paper. One-thousand fifty-five (1,055) people responded. The City should be pleased with this response level as it reflects quite positively on the City. Whereas all residents were given the opportunity to respond, keep in mind that respondents to an open survey are typically those that are most involved and interested in the subject. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. (Note: respondents were asked to respond to the survey from the perspective of their household.) Key Results Clearly public parks and recreation are important to residents. Nearly ninety percent of respondents (89.9%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two percent (72.3%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. When asked to rate how important it is to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities, the five rated the highest are: 1.Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2.Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3.Natural open space 4.Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) 5.Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc.) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 7 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 3 Interestingly, when asked to select exactly three facilities that are most important to add, trails again came out on top, but the order changed from there: 1.Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2.Swimming pool – indoor 3.Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4.Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5.Natural open space While the two lists are not identical, it is clear that the top priority for future community park, recreation and civic facilities is trails. By examining the responses to open-ended questions, one gains greater insight into specific issues about trails. The most frequent comments include the need for north/south trails; trail connections; and that trails (and in some cases sidewalks) are needed to get to park and recreation facilities safely. After trails, an indoor park/recreation facility is a priority for respondents. Many people envision such a facility serving a number of desired functions – indoor recreation space, indoor playground, fitness equipment, track and pool. Respondents often mentioned the need for an indoor park much like those in other communities, such as Edinborough in Edina. Natural open space is also a priority for respondents. One respondent described its importance by saying “Not to give any more green space away - it is what makes SLP special.” Respondents were asked about limitations to use of public parks and trails and participating in recreation activities or programs. As one might expect, lack of time is cited most frequently. In terms of limitations that the City can directly address, respondent most often said: •Facilities are not suited to my needs •Programs are not to my liking •Cost of programs & facilities In an effort to understand how to best allocate resources by age group, respondents were asked to indicate how important they think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places by age group. Respondents see the greatest need in the 13 – 17 year old age group, followed closely by those in the 6 – 12 year old age group. Next in line in terms of priority are seniors. Young children, under 5 years old, were the lowest priority for which to provide additional recreation facilities. Respondents were asked “If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places?” The most frequent response was an indoor play & fitness area. Some went on to say that it should be a space that would have classes for activities such as exercise, yoga and cooking; and that it should be an indoor space with greenery and provide the opportunity to walk indoors. People also talked about an interest in having a place to socialize, hold meetings, and rent space for personal events (e.g., weddings). Additionally, they commented that a public gathering place should be a place with a coffee shop and healthy food. Last, some people specifically said the Rec Center should be upgraded for a better public gathering place. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 8 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 4 The survey asked respondents about user fees and taxes. Specifically, they were asked if the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would they be willing to pay in additional user fees or taxes to add what’s missing? Over four-fifths of respondents said they would be willing to pay more to add what’s missing. Roughly one-third of respondents said they would be willing to pay $9/month additional; approximately one-quarter said $6/month and $3/month. At the end of the survey, many people acknowledged the good work the Parks and Recreation Department is doing and noted their appreciation for conducting the survey/asking for their opinion. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 9 REPORT OF FINDINGS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY SURVEY OF FUTURE CIVIC AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDS AND INTEREST Conducted by: Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5054 Drew Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 Kathy Schoenbauer, Co-Founder keschoenbauer@gmail.com Jeff Schoenbauer, Co-Founder jaschoenbauer@gmail.com February 2011 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 DETAILED SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS: BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES ....................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 5 WHO RESPONDED ...................................................................................... 6 OVERALL FINDINGS .................................................................................... 8 OBSERVATIONS BY WARD ............................................................................. 18 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 19 APPENDIX – SURVEY INSTRUMENT Prepared by Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC on behalf of the Park and Recreation Department of the City of St. Louis Park. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 11 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background & Objectives The primary objective of the survey was to give all residents of the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond to a survey that would assist the City in determining top priorities for future civic and/or recreational facilities needs and interests. During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park was involved in a Visioning process. As a result, the City Council developed four Strategic Directions. One of the strategic directions was “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.” From that strategic direction, one of the focus areas was to explore the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. From the Visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on this topic. This survey was designed with input from the Visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey will be used to help determine priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation and civic facilities. The upcoming city-wide phone survey of residents may be used to further test some of the ideas that result from this survey. Methodology & Who Responded The survey was administered online and via paper. One-thousand fifty-five (1,055) people responded. The City should be pleased with this response level as it reflects quite positively on the City. Whereas all residents were given the opportunity to respond, keep in mind that respondents to an open survey are typically those that are most involved and interested in the subject. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. (Note: respondents were asked to respond to the survey from the perspective of their household.) Key Results Clearly public parks and recreation are important to residents. Nearly ninety percent of respondents (89.9%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two percent (72.3%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. When asked to rate how important it is to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities, the five rated the highest are: 1.Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2.Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3.Natural open space 4.Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) 5.Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc.) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 12 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 2 Interestingly, when asked to select exactly three facilities that are most important to add, trails again came out on top, but the order changed from there: 1.Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2.Swimming pool – indoor 3.Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4.Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5.Natural open space While the two lists are not identical, it is clear that the top priority for future community park, recreation and civic facilities is trails. By examining the responses to open-ended questions, one gains greater insight into specific issues about trails. The most frequent comments include the need for north/south trails; trail connections; and that trails (and in some cases sidewalks) are needed to get to park and recreation facilities safely. After trails, an indoor park/recreation facility is a priority for respondents. Many people envision such a facility serving a number of desired functions – indoor recreation space, indoor playground, fitness equipment, track and pool. Respondents often mentioned the need for an indoor park much like those in other communities, such as Edinborough in Edina. Natural open space is also a priority for respondents. One respondent described its importance by saying “Not to give any more green space away - it is what makes SLP special.” Respondents were asked about limitations to use of public parks and trails and participating in recreation activities or programs. As one might expect, lack of time is cited most frequently. In terms of limitations that the City can directly address, respondent most often said: •Facilities are not suited to my needs •Programs are not to my liking •Cost of programs & facilities In an effort to understand how to best allocate resources by age group, respondents were asked to indicate how important they think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places by age group. Respondents see the greatest need in the 13 – 17 year old age group, followed closely by those in the 6 – 12 year old age group. Next in line in terms of priority are seniors. Young children, under 5 years old, were the lowest priority for which to provide additional recreation facilities. Respondents were asked “If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places?” The most frequent response was an indoor play & fitness area. Some went on to say that it should be a space that would have classes for activities such as exercise, yoga and cooking; and that it should be an indoor space with greenery and provide the opportunity to walk indoors. People also talked about an interest in having a place to socialize, hold meetings, and rent space for personal events (e.g., weddings). Additionally, they commented that a public gathering place should be a place with a coffee shop and healthy food. Last, some people specifically said the Rec Center should be upgraded for a better public gathering place. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 13 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 3 The survey asked respondents about user fees and taxes. Specifically, they were asked if the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would they be willing to pay in additional user fees or taxes to add what’s missing? Over four-fifths of respondents said they would be willing to pay more to add what’s missing. Roughly one-third of respondents said they would be willing to pay $9/month additional; approximately one-quarter said $6/month and $3/month. At the end of the survey, many people acknowledged the good work the Parks and Recreation Department is doing and noted their appreciation for conducting the survey/asking for their opinion. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 14 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 4 DETAILED SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 15 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5 BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the survey was to give all residents of the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond to a survey that would assist the City in determining top priorities for future civic and/or recreational facilities needs and interests. During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park was involved in a Visioning process. As a result, the City Council developed four strategic directions, one of which was “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.” From the Visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on this topic. This survey was designed with input from the Visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey will be used to help determine priorities for long- term planning of community park, recreation and civic facilities. METHODOLOGY The survey was designed based upon the objectives of the study along with input from the results of the Visioning process, staff and Council. The survey went through several draft iterations before being pilot tested online and on paper. The survey instrument is included in the appendix of this report. As indicated earlier in this report, in addition to obtaining input from residents to help determine the top priorities for future community park, recreation and civic facilities, the City wanted to ensure all residents could provide input, if they chose to take the time to do so. Therefore, the administration methods needed to be inclusive and the communication strategy comprehensive. Administration methods included providing the opportunity to complete the survey either online (using SurveyMonkey as the host site) or on paper. (Note: Only 13 of the 1,055 respondents chose to complete the survey on paper; the rest completed the survey online.) The communication strategy was comprehensive in that residents were notified about the survey in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to the following: •City website •City Hall •The Rec Center •Westwood Hills Nature Center •Neighborhood Associations •Sun Sailor •Patch.com •StarTribune •Local cable TV •Facebook •Twitter •Athletic Associations •Jewish Community Center •Lenox Senior Center •City Libraries Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 16 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 6 WHO RESPONDED The survey was open to residents from January 3 – 31, 2011. One thousand fifty-five (n=1,055) people responded to the survey. (Respondents were asked to respond to the survey from the perspective of their household.) The City should be pleased with this response level as it reflects quite positively on the City. That said, it is important to keep the following demographic data (i.e., which neighborhood respondents live in and the age groups of people in the responding households) in mind. Whereas all residents were given the opportunity to respond, keep in mind that respondents to an open survey are typically those that are most involved and interested in the subject. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. By Neighborhood One or more households responded from each of the 35 neighborhoods as shown in the chart below: Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 17 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 7 By Ward When the 35 neighborhoods are re-configured into wards, the response distribution is: Ward 1 25.5% Birchwood, Blackstone, Bronx Park, Cedarhurst, Fern Hill, Lake Forest, Lenox* & Sorensen Ward 2 36.0% Brooklawns, Brookside, Browndale, Creekside, Elmwood, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Triangle & Wolfe Park Ward 3 17.5% Amhurst, Aquila, Cobblecrest, Meadowbrook, Minnehaha, Oak Hill, South Oak Hill, Texa Tonka & Lenox* Ward 4 18.9% Cedar Manor, Crestview, Eliot, Eliot View, Kilmer Pond, Pennsylvania Park, Shelard Park, Westdale, Westwood Hills & Willow Park *Lenox spans wards 1 & 3. Note: the above percentages do not total to 100 as some respondents did not indicate which neighborhood they live in. By Age Group Responded were asked to indicate the ages of each of the people in their household. As shown in the chart below, nearly three-quarters (72.1%) of households responding contain people that are 35 – 54 years old; and over half (51.0%) have children ages 6 – 12 years: Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 18 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 8 OVERALL FINDINGS Parks and Recreation Overall It is clear that public parks and recreation are important to residents of St. Louis Park. Nearly ninety percent (89.9%) of residents strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two percent (72.3%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, as the chart below indicates, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. “What’s Missing?” One of the primary objectives of the study was to determine “What’s Missing” in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park. Respondents were presented with a list of sixteen (16) park and recreation facilities that were identified during the recent City Visioning process and asked to indicate how important they feel it is to add each facility to the City. As shown in the chart below, trails are of greatest importance with an average rating of 3.9 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = not all important to add; 3 = somewhat important to add; and 5 = extremely important to add. Nine out of the sixteen facilities received an average rating of “3” or greater as shown in the following list. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 19 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 9 1.Trails – 3.9 2.Indoor recreation space – 3.6 3.Natural open spaces – 3.6 4.Lighted athletic fields – 3.4 5.Indoor playground area – 3.3 6.Indoor spaces for healthy living classes – 3.3 7.Indoor swimming pool – 3.2 8.Indoor exercise equipment – 3.1 9.Art facility for performing arts 3.0 Respondents were given the opportunity to write in their ideas for “other recreation facilities” to add to the system. One hundred forty-four (144) people provided comments. The most frequently cited facility was an outdoor ice rink, along with the need for lights, warming houses and an extended season. Comments about outdoor ice rinks were mentioned by 62 people, or 43.1% of those providing comments. The next most frequently mentioned facility is a multi-use indoor sports and fitness facility with turf and a dome with 17 (11.8%) people providing comments. It is important to keep in mind that these are relatively small numbers compared to the total number of respondents. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 20 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 10 When required to select three facilities they feel are most important to add to those offered by the City, residents said: 1.Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. – 40.1% 2.Indoor swimming pool – 31.5% 3.Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses – 28.9% Clearly there is a small, but vocal group of residents who feel the need for more outdoor ice rinks. Of the 101 people providing write-in comments to this question, nearly half (46.5%) said an outdoor ice rink is needed. Limitations to Use and Participation Lack of time is cited as the primary reason use of public parks, trails and participation in recreation activities or programs is limited; with 75.4% of respondents saying that lack of time limits their use from “some extent” to “a great deal.” In terms of the limitations that the City can directly address, the percent of respondents indicating their use is limited to “some extent” to “a great deal” is as follows: •Facilities are not suited to my needs – 48.5% •Programs are not to my liking – 39.9% •Cost of programs & facilities – 35.2% Further detailed information regarding limitations can be found in the chart on the next page. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 21 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 11 What Else? When asked “What else, if anything, is missing in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park, that if present, would make the City a better place to live?” Four hundred sixty-one (461) people provided comments. The top themes were: •Indoor park with play & fitness areas; like Edinborough in Edina – 26.0%* •Ice rink-outdoor with warming house – 11.1% •Trails – in particular, north/south trails; connections in general – 9.3% •Multi-use domed facility with artificial turf – 8.5% •Better overall maintenance and quality of facilities – 7.1% •Indoor pool – 6.5% *When these comments are combined with those saying “indoor pool”, “true community center” and “track” the percentage increases to 35.8%. Clearly, an indoor park/recreation facility is considered a priority and this type of facility would be worth considering when the time comes to add a major facility to the system. Following is a list of additional topics respondents provided. Please note that less than five percent of respondents said the following is needed: arts facilities (visual & performing); lighted outdoor facilities; more programs and facilities for youth and teens; nothing else; more green space; more sidewalks; more restrooms; adult activities/recreation leagues; more dog parks; groomed ski trails; more baseball fields; winter activities and disc golf. Note: 18 people said to “keep up the good work; we have good parks and recreation facilities.” Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 22 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 12 Change One Thing When asked “If you could change one thing about park and recreation facilities in St. Louis Park, what would that one thing be?” Five hundred seventeen (517) people took the opportunity to respond. The top themes were: •Indoor park with play & fitness areas; like Edinborough in Edina – 15.4%* •Multi-use domed facility with artificial turf – 9.0% •Need for better, higher quality, updated facilities (some commented directly about the need to upgrade the Rec Center) – 8.9% •Make it less expensive to participate; lower rates and priority for SLP residents – 8.1% •Extend facility and programs hours; keep buildings open – 6.6% •Indoor pool – 6.6% * When these comments are combined with those saying “indoor pool”, “true community center” and “track” the percentage increases to 23.0%. Clearly, respondents used this question as an opportunity to drive home their particular interest/perspective. Note: Less than five percent of respondents provided additional comments regarding changing one thing: need outdoor ice rink with warming house (generally for hockey); better maintenance/upkeep/cleaning of existing facilities – both indoor and outdoor (e.g., ice not maintained, bathrooms need cleaning, trash removal); lighted facilities; more restrooms; programs and facilities for youth and teens; use existing resources wisely and collaborate with others; keep up the good work; lower rates for SLP residents and priority for using facilities; more policing and oversight; nothing to change; enhanced water park; more parking; and better access to information regarding programs and facilities. Priority by Age Group In an effort to understand how to best allocate resources by age group, respondents were asked to indicate how important they think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places by age group. As noted in the chart below, respondents see the greatest need in the 13 – 17 year old age group (mean score 4.1; where 5 = Extremely important); followed closely by those in the 6 – 12 year old age group (mean score 3.9). Next in line in terms of priority are seniors. Young children, under 5 years old, were the lowest priority for which to provide additional facilities. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 23 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 13 Public Gathering Places Respondents were asked “If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places?” Four hundred (400) of the 1,055 respondents provided comments. Nearly 40 percent (39.8%) talked about their interest in an indoor play & fitness area. Some went on to say that it should be a space that would have classes for activities such as exercise, yoga and cooking; and that it should be an indoor space with greenery and provide the opportunity to walk indoors. Many mentioned facilities that other communities have, such as the Edinborough facility in Edina. The following ideas were mentioned most frequently: •Indoor play and fitness space – 39.8% •Place to socialize, hold meetings, be able to rent for personal events (e.g., weddings) – 19.8% •Coffee shop; healthy food – 10.5% •Upgrade the Rec Center – 9.5% •Concerts, theatre, performing arts – 6.8% •Free Wi-Fi – 6.0% •Visual arts space for classes & exhibits – 5.8% Many additional ideas were provided by less than five percent of respondents. Those ideas include: place for parents to sit & socialize while kids play; outdoor informal recreation space, especially for kids; teen gathering place; domed facility; nothing else needed; trails for walking & biking; feel safe in parks; ice rink; adult learning classes; athletic fields and courts; outdoor winter activities; places to Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 24 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 14 read; more parks in general; clean spaces, green spaces; picnic spots; City does a good job already; and place to walk the dog. What Other Ways Could the City Make a Positive Difference? When asked “In what other ways could the City of St. Louis Park make a positive difference in meeting the park and recreation needs of your household?” Two hundred ninety-four (294) people provided comments. Trails and an indoor play and fitness space were mentioned most frequently. Specifically, people said: •Trails – trail connections, keep expanding and maintaining trails, need trails or sidewalks to get to parks – 12.2% •Indoor play & fitness space; “true” community center – 10.5% •Expand/update/use what we have more effectively – 7.1% •Continue the good work; SLP is a great place to live – 6.1% Many additional ideas were provided by less than 5 percent of respondents. Those ideas include: need better maintenance/upkeep/cleaning of existing facilities – both indoor and outdoor (e.g., need mowing, floors and bathrooms cleaned, trash removal); do a better job of communicating what we already have; provide more activities in general; places and activities for teens; make participation more affordable; more policing, traffic control and monitoring of facilities; an indoor pool; water park, no more taxes, nothing more in this economy; more kids programs especially sports, including those for kids who don’t want to commit to a traveling team; more trees, green space; more bathrooms; and collaborate more with others (e.g., schools, sports associations, other communities). Willing to Pay – User Fees An overwhelming majority of respondents are willing to pay additional user fees to add “what’s missing.” Respondents were asked “If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be willing to pay in user fees to add what’s missing?” Eighty-six percent (86.8%) indicated that they would be willing to pay anywhere between $3 and $9 additional per month in user fees. In addition to indicating the amount they would be willing to pay, some respondents provided supporting comments. Following is a summary of those responses: Amount % Additional comments $0/month 13.3% Keep fees as low as possible; not willing/able to pay more; be more cost effective with what we have or cut spending $3/month 27.9% Prefer user fees $6/month 24.8% Prefer users fees; keep fees as low as possible $9/month 34.1% Willing to pay $9 or more per month for better facilities and services; prefer user fees N/A Willing to pay $9 or more per month for better facilities and services; prefer user fees; it depends what it is spent on; keep fees as low as possible; be more cost effective with what we have or cut spending Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 25 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 15 Willing to Pay – Taxes As with user fees, an overwhelming majority of respondents are willing to pay additional taxes to add “what’s missing.” Respondents were asked “If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be willing to pay in taxes to add what’s missing?” Eighty percent (80.2%) indicated that they would be willing to pay anywhere between $3 and $9 additional per month in taxes. In addition to indicating the amount they would be willing to pay, some respondents provided supporting comments. Following is a summary of those responses: Amount % Additional comments $0/month 19.8% No more taxes; cut back on other services; make it a user fee $3/month 27.1% n/a $6/month 20.6% Cut back on other services; be more cost effective; user fees or taxes – not both $9/month 32.5% Would pay more than $9/month; depends on what it goes for N/A Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 26 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 16 Additional Comments Near the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional comments, and 228 people did so. The key themes include: •Keep up the good work; SLP is a great community – 28.9% •Thanks for doing this survey/asking for my input; will there be feedback? – 14.5% •We spend enough tax money already; don’t spend more on parks; maintain what we have – 10.5% •Update and maintain current facilities; invest in the future – 7.0% Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 27 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 17 Information about Parks and Recreation At the end of the survey, respondents were asked “Where does your household get information about St. Louis Park parks and recreation? Park brochures and publications were cited most frequently (84.9%); with online being rated second at 63.4%. Optional – Thank You/Marketing Tool Over half (57.6%) of all respondents signed up to receive a complimentary daily admission to the Aquatic Park which was provided as an option in return for taking the time to complete the survey. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 28 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 18 OBSERVATIONS BY WARD In terms of the results of the survey, there are rather minor differences by ward. The differences are primarily in terms of who responded to the survey. Those differences are: Ward 1 – slightly higher percentage of 13 – 17 year olds vs. overall population responding; slightly fewer households get information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association vs. the overall population responding Ward 2 – slightly lower percentage of 13 – 17 year olds vs. overall population responding; much higher percentage of households get information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association vs. the overall population responding Ward 3 – slightly higher percentage of 18 – 34 year olds vs. the overall population responding; much lower percentage of households get their information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association vs. the overall population responding Ward 4 – slightly lower percentage of people under 5 years old vs. the overall population responding; lower percentage of households get their information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association and athletic associations vs. the overall population responding Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 29 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 19 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This survey provided everyone living in St. Louis Park with the opportunity to provide input to the Park and Recreation Department, and City as a whole, regarding top priorities for future community park, recreation and civic facilities. Typically, those people that are most involved and interested in a subject will take the time to respond to a survey. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. Clearly public parks and recreation are important to those that responded; and, overall they feel that the City is doing a good job of providing for their household’s needs. Respondents said that trails and trail connections are the single most important facility to add to the system. This is not surprising as much of the research out there demonstrates that trails for walking and biking, in particular, are of great interest to people of all ages. After trails, an indoor park/recreation facility (with fitness facilities, indoor recreation space, pool, greenery and places to sit and socialize) is of great interest to respondents. This type of facility would likely have fairly broad appeal across various demographic groups of residents. In addition to trails and an indoor park, natural open space is important to many respondents and protecting natural open space should be considered a priority. In the design phase of the survey, it was felt that there is some interest in the community for a domed athletic facility with artificial turf and for additional ice rink facilities, particularly for hockey. The results of this survey indicate that interest in, and support for, these types of facilities may or may not be broadly based across the population. If, in the future, the City considers adding these types of facilities to the system, it is recommended that further research be done before moving forward. The City may want to consider further investigating the interest in, and need for, these types of facilities via the upcoming city-wide phone survey that is planned. The City may also want to consider using the city-wide phone survey to further test the idea of an indoor park. It could be useful to understand the scope of amenities residents want/expect in such a facility. Given the cost of an indoor park/recreation facility, the phone survey would be a good tool to validate the importance of an indoor park to all residents (or rather, a statistically reliable sample of the population). Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 30 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 20 APPENDIX – SURVEY INSTRUMENT Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 31 Page 1 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey The City of St. Louis Park is conducting a city-wide survey of residents and your input is needed to help us determine the top priorities for future community park, recreation and civic facilities. The results of this survey will help us determine priorities for long-term planning. Your input is very important to us. The survey will take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please respond to each question from the perspective of your household. (Complete one survey per household, please.) Your input is important in helping us shape our community! Every household that completes a survey will receive a complimentary daily addmission to the Aquatic Park! Translations of this survey into other languages can be obtained by calling (952) 924-2540. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Cindy Walsh, Director, Parks & Recreation Department Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 32 Page 2 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey Please respond to the following questions from the perspective of your household. 1. Please click on the number that best represents your opinion. "1" means you strongly disagree with the statement; "5" means you strongly agree with the statement. 1 = Strongly disagree 3 = Neither agree or disagree 5 = Strongly agree Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household's park and recreation needs. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 33 Page 3 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 2. Following is a list of park and recreation facilities that were identified during the recent City Visioning process. We need your help in determining “what’s missing” in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park. Please indicate how important you think it is to ADD each facility to the City. “1” means it is not all important to add the facility; “5” means it is extremely important to add the facility to those already offered to residents. Click on the number that best represents your opinion. 1 = Not at all important to add 3 = Somewhat important to add 5 = Extremely important to add Swimming pool - indoor nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Upgrades to, or expansion of, current outdoor water park nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor track nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor exercise equipment nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Natural open spaces nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Artificial turf with a dome nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Artificial turf without a dome nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Art facility for visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Art facility for performing arts (dance, music, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor spaces for healthy living classes (general exercise, yoga, tai chi, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Disc golf course nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Community meeting space nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Other recreation facility (please specify) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 34 Page 4 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 3. Of the facilities listed above, please SELECT THE THREE facilities that you think are MOST IMPORTANT to add to those offered by St. Louis Park’s Park & Recreation. * Swimming pool – indoorgfedc Upgrades to, or expansion of, existing water parkgfedc Indoor trackgfedc Indoor exercise equipmentgfedc Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.)gfedc Natural open spacesgfedc Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc.gfedc Lighted athletic fields (existing fields)gfedc Artificial turf with a domegfedc Artificial turf without a domegfedc Art facility for visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.)gfedc Art facility for performing arts (dance, music, etc.)gfedc Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple usesgfedc Indoor spaces for healthy living classes (general exercise, yoga, tai chi, etc.)gfedc Disc golf coursegfedc Community meeting spacegfedc Other recreation facility (please specify) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 35 Page 5 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 4. To what extent do the following limit you/your household’s use of public parks, trails and participation in recreation activities or programs? Click on the number that best represents your opinion. 1 = Not at all 3 = Some 5 = A great deal Lack of time nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Lack of transportation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Too far to travel nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Cost of programs & facilities nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Facilities are not suited to my needs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Programs are not to my liking nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Cultural barriers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Lack of information about facilities and programs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Level of quality of parks and facilities nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Personal health issues nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Cultural beliefs & restrictions nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Concern about personal safety nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Companion – no one to do things with nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Don’t feel welcome by other park users nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Don’t feel welcome by park staff nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Facilities are not physically accessible to me nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Days that facilities are open nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Hours that facilities are open nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 36 Page 6 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 5. What else, if anything, is missing in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park, that if present, would make the City a better place to live? 6. If you could change one thing about park and recreation facilities in St. Louis Park, what would that one thing be? 7. The City would like to know if the need for additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places varies by age group. Please indicate how important you think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places for each of the following age groups. "1" means it is not at all important to add recreation facilities/gathering places for that age group; "5" means it is extremely important to add recreation facilities/gathering places for that age group. 8. If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places? 9. In what other ways could the City of St. Louis Park make a positive difference in meeting the park and recreation needs of your household? 55 66 55 66 1 = Not at all important 3 = Somewhat important 5 = Extremely important Under 5 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 6 - 12 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 13 - 17 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 18 - 34 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 35 - 54 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Over 55 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 55 66 55 66 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 37 Page 7 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 10. If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be WILLING TO PAY IN ADDITIONAL USER FEES to add what’s missing? 11. If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be WILLING TO PAY IN ADDITIONAL TAXES to add what’s missing? 12. Any additional comments? 55 66 $0/monthnmlkj $3/monthnmlkj $6/monthnmlkj $9/monthnmlkj Other (please specify) $0/monthnmlkj $3/monthnmlkj $6/monthnmlkj $9/monthnmlkj Other (please specify) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 38 Page 8 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey The following questions will help us better understand the needs of different groups of people. Your responses are completely confidential. Check only one response per question, unless otherwise indicated. Below is a map of St. Louis Park. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 39 Page 9 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 13. Which neighborhood do you live in? 14. Are there people in your household (Check all that apply)? Amhurstnmlkj Aquilanmlkj Birchwoodnmlkj Blackstonenmlkj Bronx Parknmlkj Brooklawnsnmlkj Brooksidenmlkj Browndalenmlkj Cedar Manornmlkj Cedarhurstnmlkj Cobblecrestnmlkj Creeksidenmlkj Crestviewnmlkj Eliotnmlkj Eliot Viewnmlkj Elmwoodnmlkj Fern Hillnmlkj Kilmer Pondnmlkj Lake Forestnmlkj Lenoxnmlkj Meadowbrooknmlkj Minikahda Oaksnmlkj Minikahda Vistanmlkj Minnehahanmlkj Oak Hillnmlkj Pennsylvania Parknmlkj Shelard Parknmlkj Sorensennmlkj South Oak Hillnmlkj Texa Tonkanmlkj Trianglenmlkj Westdalenmlkj Westwood Hillsnmlkj Willow Parknmlkj Wolfe Parknmlkj Don’t knownmlkj Under 5 years oldgfedc 6 – 12 years oldgfedc 13 – 17 years oldgfedc 18 - 34 years oldgfedc 35 – 54 years oldgfedc Over 55 years oldgfedc Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 40 Page 10 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 15. Where does your household get information about St. Louis Park parks and recreation? (Check all that apply) 16. Optional – We will need this information if you want to receive a complimentary daily admission to the Aquatic Park! Name: Address: City/Town: ZIP: Email Address: News mediagfedc Onlinegfedc Neighborhood associationgfedc Athletic associationgfedc Word-of-mouthgfedc Recreation centersgfedc Park brochures & publicationsgfedc Other (please specify) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 41 Page 11 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey Thanks so much for your input! If you have any questions, please contact Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator at jzwilling@stlouispark.org. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 42 Page1 The St. Louis Park Community Center The St. Louis Park Community Center will be a safe and active gathering place for community members to play, relax, celebrate and have fun. The vision for the community center includes two gymnasiums, indoor play structure, birthday party rooms, community room with a serving kitchen, walking/jogging track, indoor leisure pool with zero depth entry, current channel, water features and lap lanes, fitness center with cardiovascular and weight lifting area, aerobic studios, daycare area, support offices, administration area and lobby. The proposed community center is approximately 110,000 square feet. The community surveys conducted in 2012 were instrumental to discovering what amenities the community center should include. Amenities such as a walking/running track, lap swimming, banquet facility, full fitness center, daycare area were highly needed with in the community. This document will walk through the financial operational pro-forma. This operational pro-forma was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. However, there is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are not consistent in their influence on the budgetary process. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 43 Page2 Below is a synopsis of the first year expenditures/ revenue cost comparison and cost recovery. Category Facility Budget Expenditures $1,698,988 Revenue $1,170,728 Difference ($528,260) Recovery percentage 68.9% Future Years Expenditures – Revenue Comparison: Operation expenditures are expected to increase on average by approximately 3% per year through the first five years of operation. Revenue growth is expected to increase by 4% to 8% a year through the first three years and then level off with only a slight growth (3% or less) the next two years. Expenses for the first year of operation should be slightly lower than projected with the facility being under warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first three years is attributed to increased market penetration, and in the remaining years to continued population growth. In most recreation facilities the first three years show tremendous growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities, but at the end of this time period revenue growth begins to flatten out. It is not uncommon to see the amount of tax support needed to balance the community center budget increase as the facility ages. Five-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison Years Expense Revenue Difference Recovery % Base $1,698,988 1,170,728 ($528,260) 68.9% 2015 1,748,258 1,225,752 ($522,506) 70.1% 2016 1,798,958 1,283,362 ($515,596) 71.3% 2017 1,851,128 1,338,547 ($512,581) 72.3% 2018 1,904,810 1,389,412 ($515,398) 72.9% Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 44 Page3 Hours of Operation: The projected hours of operation of the community center are as follows: Monday – Friday 5:30am to 9:30pm. Saturday 6:00am to 9:00pm. Sunday 10:00am to 8:00pm Hours per week: 105. Hours will vary some with the season (longer hours in the winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs, use patterns and special events. Expenditures Expenditures have been formulated based on the costs that were designated by Ballard*King and Associates and then modified by staff to be included in the operating budget for the facility. The figures are based on the anticipated size of the center, the specific components of the facility, and the hours of operation. All expenses were calculated to the high side and the actual cost may be less based on the final design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by the City. Category Facility Budget Personnel Expense Full-time1 $ 500,240 Part-time2 $ 599,098 Operating Expense $ 599,650 Total $1,698,988 1 Line item detail and listing of full-time positions can be found on page 4. 2 Line item detail and listing of part-time positions can be found on page 5. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 45 Page4 Full Time Staffing Levels: Positions Facility Budget Aquatic Supervisor (oversee all aquatics) $ 60,000 Administrative Services Clerical $ 45,000 Maintenance Supervisor (Field Sup) $ 60,000 Rental Coordinator $ 50,000 PSW/Custodians (3) $124,800 Building Coordinator $45,000 Salaries $384,800 Benefits (30% of salaries) $115,440 Total Full-Time Personnel $500,240 Note: Pay rates were determined based on the market conditions in St Louis Park. The positions listed are necessary to ensure adequate and safe staffing and provide for a full- time staff member presence during all open hours of the facility. The wage scales for both the full-time and part-time staff positions reflect estimated wages for 2014. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 46 Page5 Part-Time Staffing Levels Positions Hours/Wk Facility Budget Part-Time3 Front Desk (51 wks) 164 hrs/wk $ 100,368 ($12.00/hr) Manager on Duty (52 wks) 65 hrs/wk $ 60,840 ($18/hr) Daycare (51 wks) 88 hrs/wk $ 42,636 ($9.50/hr) Birthday Party Host (41 wks) 40 hrs/wk $ 16,400 ($10.00/hr) Fitness Attendant (51 wks) 38 hrs/wk $ 23,256 ($12.00/hr) Lifeguards (36 wks) 354/hrs/wk $ 133,812 ($10.50/hr) Lifeguards (15 wks) 388/hrs/wk $ 61,110 ($10.50/hr) Head Lifeguard (51 wks) 53 hrs/wk $ 31,084 ($11.50/hr) Program Instructors4 Fitness $ 36,000 General $ 17,280 Sports $ 12,000 Aquatics $ 21,738 Salaries $ 556,524 Benefits (7.65% of part-time wages) $ 42,574 Total Part-Time Salaries $ 599,098 3 A detailed schedule by position begins on page 6. 4 Some programs and classes will be on a contractual basis with the center, where the facility will take a percentage of the revenue collected for the program. These programs have not been calculated in this budget at this time. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 47 Page6 Detailed Part-Time Staff Hours (51 wks) Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Office Assistant I Mon-Fri 5:30am – 9:30pm 8 2 5 80 3pm – 9pm 6 1 5 30 Saturday 6am – 9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon-4pm 4 1 1 4 Sunday 10 – 8pm 10 2 1 20 Total 164 hours Managers On Duty Mon-Fri 5pm – 10pm 5 1 5 25 Saturday 9am – 9pm 10 2 1 20 Sunday 10pm – 8pm 10 2 1 20 Total 65 hours Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 48 Page7 Detailed Part-Time Staff (cont.) Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Daycare Attendant Mon – Fri 9am –1pm 4 2 5 40 5pm – 8pm 3 2 5 30 Saturday 9am – 2pm 5 2 1 10 Sunday 12noon – 4pm 4 2 1 8 Total 88 hours Birthday Party Host Saturday 9am – 9pm 10 2 1 20 Sunday 10am – 8pm 10 2 1 20 Total 40 hours Fitness Attendant Mon-Fri. 4pm-8pm 4 1 5 20 Saturday 9am-9pm 12 1 1 12 Sunday Noon-6:00pm 6 1 1 6 Total 38 hours Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 49 Page8 Detailed Part-Time Staff (cont.) Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Head Lifeguard Mon-Fri 3pm-9pm 6 1 5 30 Saturday 6am-9pm 15 1 1 15 Sunday Noon-8pm 8 1 1 8 Total 53 hours Lifeguards (36 wks) Mon-Fri 5:30am-9:00pm 15.5 2 5 155 3:30pm-9:00pm 5.5 3 5 82 5:00pm-8pm 3 1 5 15 Saturday 6am-9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon-9pm 9 4 1 36 Sunday Noon-6pm 6 6 1 36 Total 354 hours Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 50 Page9 Detailed Part-Time Staff (cont.) Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Lifeguards (15 wks) Mon-Fri 5:30am-9:00pm 15.5 2 5 155 1:00pm-4:00pm 3 4 5 60 4:00pm- 9:00pm 5 3 5 75 Saturday 6am-9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon-5pm 5 4 1 20 5:00pm-9:00pm 4 3 1 12 Sunday Noon-6pm 6 6 1 36 Total 388 hours Program Staff Cost Fitness Type Games/hrs Weeks Rate Cost Aerobics 10 48 $30.00/hr $ 14,400 Weight Training 2 48 $30.00/hr $ 2,880 Pilates/Yoga 4 48 $35.00/hr $ 6,720 Youth Fitness 4 48 $30.00/hr $ 5,760 Kick Boxing 2 48 $30.00/hr $ 2,880 Spinning 2 48 $35.00/hr $ 3,360 Total $36,000 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 51 Page10 General Type Hrs/wk Weeks Rate Cost Youth in Motion 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Dance/Tumbling 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Martial Arts 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Arts/Crafts 8 48 $15.00/hr $ 5,760 Senior Classes 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2880 Total $17,280 Aquatics Type Classes Sessions Rate Cost Swim Instructors (37 wks) 96 4 $12.00/hr $ 4,608 Swim Instructors (15 wks) 120 5 $12.00/hr $ 7,200 Private Lessons 150 Annual $15.00/lesson $ 2,250 Water Fitness 32 12 $20.00/hr $ 7,680 ______ Total $21,738 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 52 Page11 Operation Cost Model Category Facility Budget Utilities5 $315,000 (gas & elect) Water/sewer $ 22,500 Employee Services $ 3,250 Contract services6 $ 25,000 Training/Conference $ 5,000 Rental equipment $ 2,000 Advertising/promotions $ 10,000 Bank charges7 $ 7,500 Trash $ 3,900 Insurance8 $ 15,000 Others $ 2,500 ________ Total $411,650 5 Rate factored at $2.86/SF for balance of the building. It should be noted that the rate for natural gas and electricity have been volatile over the past year and could result in substantially higher costs for utilities over time. 6 Contract services includes HVAC, IT services, elevator, fire alarm system, music, office equipment, custodial services and copy machine services. 7 Includes bank fees for processing credit card and electronic fund transfers (EFT) 8 Insurance for property and general liability. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 53 Page12 Operation Cost Model cont. Category Facility Budget Vending Supplies $ 15,000 Janitorial Supplies $ 15,000 Rec. Program Supplies $ 31,000 Chemicals $ 17,500 Uniforms $ 4,000 Printing $ 3,000 Maint/Repair Materials $ 20,000 Staff Dues/Licenses/Subscriptions/Certs. $ 2,500 Misc. $ 5,000 Total $113,000 Capital Replacement Reserve9 $ 75,000 Total $188,000 9 Capital needs will be minimal during the first year of operation since most equipment and operating systems will be under warranty. It is strongly recommended that a sinking fund be established with a goal to build adequate reserves that meet future capital needs. American Public Works recommends planning for 2%-4% of construction cost for capital and maintenance needs. Since maintenance costs have been factored into this pro- forma, a target for building the sinking fund to a level of $250,000 is desirable. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 54 Page13 Revenues The following revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to national statistics, other similar local facilities and the competition for recreation services in the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and make-up of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priority of use. All revenues were calculated conservatively as a result. Revenue Projection Model: Category Facility Budget User Fees10 Daily Admissions $157,500 Annual Passes $366,900 Monthly Passes $192,200 3-Month Passes $ 38,600 Facility Rentals $ 82,880 _________ Total $838,080 10 Detailed breakdown on fees can be found on page 17. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 55 Page14 Revenue Projection Model cont. Category Facility Budget Programs11 General $ 53,040 Fitness $ 7,488 Sports $ 30,080 Aquatics $ 87,630 ________ Total $178,283 Other Special events $ 5,000 Daycare $ 32,250 Birthday Parties $ 72,160 Vending $ 45,000 _________ Total $154,410 Grand Total $1,170,728 11 Detailed breakdown on program fees can be found beginning on page 18. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 56 Page15 Fees and Attendance Projected Fee Schedule: Revenue projections will be calculated from this fee model. The monthly rate listed is the cost of an annual pass broken down into twelve equal payments and does not include any handling fees. It should be noted that monthly bank draft convenience for customers would encourage more annual pass sales. However, there are bank fees and a substantial amount of staff time spent managing the bank draft membership base and consideration should be given to pass on some form of a handling fee for bank draft customers. Category Daily Annual Monthly 3-Month Adult $10.00 $360 $40.00 $100.00 Youth $ 8.00 $240 $30.00 $ 90.00 Senior $10.00 $300 $32.00 $ 95.00 Family NA $720 $70.00 $200.00 The fee schedule above was developed as the criteria for estimating revenues. Actual fees are subject to review and approval by the City of St. Louis Park. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 57 Page16 Attendance projections: The revenue projections earlier in this report are based off the following attendance projections. The admission numbers will be impacted by the rates being charged, the facilities available for use, and the competition within the service area. The figures are based on the performance of other similar facilities in other areas of the country. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on 360 days of operation. Yearly paid admissions Visits Per Year Daily 18,000 (50 daily admission) Annuals 67,600 (650 sold annually) Monthly 38,340 (4,260 sold annually) 3-Month 9,540 (265 sold annually) Total Yearly 133,480 Total Daily 371 Admission for memberships were figured based on 104 visits per year for the Community Center. Family admissions were counted as only one admission. Multiple admissions represent twenty admissions per unit sold. Note: Attendance for other events, programs, and spectator functions is difficult to predict but a best guess estimate is approximately 2.5 times the number of paid admissions. Community centers are traditionally the busiest from November to March and Mid-June to Mid-August and are slow from April to early June and again from mid-August to the end of October. Weekdays between the hours of 4pm and 8pm are the busiest times of the week, and weekends are also very busy during the winter months. In contrast, mid- morning and early afternoons on weekdays are usually slow as well as weekends during the summer months (especially Sundays). Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 58 Page17 Detailed Program Fees and Revenue Worksheet Daily Admissions Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 20 $10.00 $200.00 Youth (0-12) 25 $ 8.00 $200.00 Senior 5 $10.00 $50.00 _______ Total Daily 50 $450.00 x 350 days = $157,500 (per day average) Annual Passes Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 185 $360.00 $ 66,600 Youth (0-12) 30 $240.00 $ 7,200 Senior 65 $300.00 $ 19,500 Family 380 $720.00 $273,600 ___ ________ Total Annuals 650 $366,900 Monthly Passes Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 2,320 $40.00 $ 92,800 Youth (0-12) 340 $30.00 $ 10,200 Senior 600 $32.00 $ 19,200 Family 1000 $70.00 $ 70,000 ___ ________ Total Annuals 4,260 $192,200 3-Month Passes Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 85 $100.00 $ 8,500 Youth (0-12) 25 $ 90.00 $ 2,250 Senior 30 $ 95.00 $ 2,850 Family 125 $200.00 $ 25,000 ___ ________ Total Annuals 265 $ 38,600 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 59 Page18 Rentals Category Number Fee Session Revenue Banquet Room (all day) 28 $1,200/event annual $ 33,600 Gymnasium 15 $ 50/hr 28 wks $ 21,000 Summer BB Camp 30 $ 50/hr 2 wks $ 3,000 Gym Tournaments 6 $ 600/day annual $ 3,600 Pre-School Groups 4 $ 40/visit 48 wks $ 7,680 Misc. Rentals 2 $ 250/hr 28 wks $ 14,000 _______ Total $ 82,880 General Category Number Fee Session Revenue Dance/Tumbling 30 $ 45.00 8 $10,800 Arts/Crafts 40 $ 45.00 8 $14,400 Martial Arts 24 $ 45.00 8 $ 8,640 Youth in Motion 30 $ 45.00 8 $10,800 Senior Classes 30 $ 35.00 8 $ 8,400 _______ Total $53,040 Fitness Type Numbers Fees Session Revenue Aerobics Drop-in 32 $ 5.00 8 $ 1,280 Aerobics – Sign up 12 $ 48.00 8 $ 4,608 Pilates/Yoga 24 $ 5.00 8 $ 960 Power Flex $ 8 $ Youth Fitness $ 8 $ Kick Boxing $ 8 $ Spinning Drop-in 16 $ 5.00 8 $ 640 _______ Total $ 7,488 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 60 Page19 Youth/Adult Organized Sports Category Number Fee Session Revenue Youth Volleyball 16 $290 2 $ 9,280 Soccer 16 $650 2 $20,800 _______ Total $30,080 Aquatics Category Number Fee Sessions Revenue Swim Lessons (37 wks) 72 $65.00 4 $18,720 Swim Lessons (15 wks) 90 $65.00 5 $29,250 Private Lessons 60 $85.00 Annual $ 5,100 Water Fitness 60 $48.00 12 $34,560 _______ Total $87,630 Other Revenue Daycare Category Number Fee Session Revenue Members 30 $3.00/hr 300 $ 27,000 Non-Members 5 $3.50/hr 300 $ 5,250 _______ Total $32,250 Birthday Parties Number # of days/wk #of wks Fee Revenue 8 Parties 2 41 wks $110/party $72,160 Vending Category Number Fee Sessions Revenue Vending $45,000 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 61 ______________________________________________________________________________ = `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== City of Saint Louis Park Community Center Feasibility Study August 12, 2013 hga commission number 1575-003-00 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 62 ______________________________________________________________________________ ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Operating Costs Project Stakeholders and Design Team 2. Establishing Need Project Visioning Demographic Analysis Trends in Community Center Facility Community Interest Survey 3. Facility Program Program Summary Program Spreadsheet Graphic Program 4. Site Evaluation Option 1: Urban Edge West Site Analysis Concept Plan Cost Estimate Option 2: Gateway Site Analysis Concept Plan Cost Estimate Option 3: Parkview Concept Plan Cost Estimate Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 63 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Saint Louis Park desired the team to assist in site evaluation and planning for a new community center facility to be located in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. Four sites were considered and three options were developed on two short-listed sites: 1. Southwest quadrant/corner of Highway 100 and West 36th Street 2. The Rec Center / Melrose EDI area This feasibility study explores the potential of each site with the primary purpose to provide cost estimates that will guide the City in determining next steps for projects. The team began the work effort by refining the building program that was completed with the Task Force in November of 2012. Once the desired spaces were identified, building floor plans and related site features were tested on the short-listed sites. Lastly, HGA prepared cost estimates for each of three options. Our findings are documented in this report and will support decisions on the best value and possible benefit of each site. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 64 ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 1.1 Operating Costs Estimated Operating Costs: Staff has worked with the firm of Ballard & King to assist with an Operating Analysis estimate. Jeff King took the program components outlined in this report to design an operating budget and revenue projections. Jeff King has estimated expense and revenue projections for many community centers throughout the United States. The estimated annual expenses to operate a facility of this size are estimated to be $1,825,080. That includes the anticipated increase in full time staff to run the facility as well as part time staff, utilities, program expenses, supplies and other miscellaneous items needed to run a facility. The corresponding revenue projections on an annual basis are estimated to be $1,197,142. The revenue projections include memberships and daily admissions (anticipating several options) as well as rental revenue obtained from the community room. The difference is ($627,938). The anticipated recovery rate is 66%. 1.2 Project Stakeholders and Design Team The Feasibility Study process was informed and guided by a diverse group of stakeholders representing multiple areas of expertise within the City. Each individual involved graciously provided their time and expertise to ensure the completion of a comprehensive Feasibility Study that best meets the goals of the project. The design team received guidance and direction from the City of Saint Louis Park Director of Parks and Recreation, recreation center staff and city planning leadership. The design team included design professionals from HGA Architects, Engineers and Planners responsible for building programming, site analysis, site fit planning and construction cost estimating. Analysis and planning of aquatics programs and related aquatics engineering was provided by the firm USAquatics. Stakeholders and members of the design team are acknowledged below: City of Saint Louis Park Team Cindy Walsh Parks and Recreation Director Sean Walther Senior Planner Ryan Kelley Meg McMonigal Associate Planner Planning/Zoning Supervisor Rec Center Team Jason Eisold Rec Center Manager Rick Birno Recreation Superintendent Design/Consultant Team Victor Pechaty, AIA HGA – Design Principal Nancy Blankfard, AIA HGA – Project Manager d’Andre Willis, AIA HGA – Recreation Facility Planner Kendra Beaubiean, AIA Jeff Harris, PE Mark McDonald Thomas Schaffer HGA – Project Architect HGA - Mechanical Engineer HGA – Cost Estimating USAquatics – Aquatic Consultant Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 65 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 2.ESTABLISHING NEED 2.1 Project Visioning Identifying a clear project vision was seen as a necessary first step in refining program needs for the St. Louis Park Community Center. From this vision the team formed guiding principles to ensure that all future explorations of building space programs and design options grew out of St. Louis Park’s unique character and goals for the future. The vision for the future Community Center is to: …be a successful community gathering place …serve friends and neighbors …be busy throughout the week with many types of activities …be an affordable and accessible facility …be a multi-generational facility …have unstructured gathering spaces to keep folks active year-round …complement the existing senior center without competing with it ...have synergy with the Rec Center …be active throughout all four seasons of the year …be successfully staffed …have staying power as quality experience in St. Louis Park The visioning sessions also included high level brainstorming about the look and feel of the future facility. The St. Louis Park team established goals that the Center will: …have functional and efficient planning …have a design that enhances the program offerings …support program offerings with flexibility and multipurpose spaces …provide ease and comfort of orientation …have an inviting nature, be fresh and open …incorporate daylight and natural materials …have a gathering space anchored by fireplace and hearth …connect to nature and outdoor activities …enable SLP’s current high standards of operation to continue These principles establish the standards against which all quantitative programming and design studies would be evaluated throughout the Feasibility Study process. They are reflected in the design alternatives allowing the City to take the next steps toward a full realization of the St. Louis Park Community Center. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 66 ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 2.2 Demographic Analysis To help situate the Community Center program needs in a broader context, demographic data was evaluated for the State of Minnesota and the City of St. Louis Park. The analysis focused on population growth trends geographically and by age. Per the table below, the City of St. Louis Park saw explosive growth in the 1950s and 60s; dipped somewhat and has shown stable but modest growth from the mid-1980s to the present. Stable growth is projected to continue. The trend toward a more senior population in the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, and the City of St. Louis Park is consistent with national trends. While Minnesota’s population is projected to increase overall, the greatest percentage increase will be in the age 62+ bracket: Over the next twenty- five years, the average age in Hennepin County will increase dramatically. Currently, people in the 65+ age range comprise 6-12% of total population in the County. This is projected to increase to 20-27% of total population by year 2035. pim=mçéìä~íáçå=eáëíçêóI=rp=`Éåëìë=a~í~= eÉååÉéáå=`çìåíó=mçéìä~íáçå=eáëíçêóI=rp=`Éåëìë=a~í~ Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 67 ______________________________________________________________________________ 5 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== St. Louis Park population trends between the 2000 and 2010 census indicate two major population concentrations. The largest population group increase by number is in the 50-65 age group, indicating baby boomer generations approaching and reaching retirement age. In addition to the well documented trend toward aging population, the 2010 Census indicates strong growth among the 25-29 age groups, indicative of growth in families with young children. While there is a diverse distribution in all ages, the demographic statistics suggest that St. Louis Park’s Community Center and recreational needs may be more concentrated in the areas of senior citizens and families with children 0-19 years of age. This data points to a need to serve a wide band of age groups in the future Community Center, both in terms of program offerings and space needs. The Community Center promises to be a vibrant place for the community to gather if all age groups can find activities that meet their needs and interests. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 68 ______________________________________________________________________________ 6 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Additionally, the change in population when viewed by race indicates that St. Louis Park is one of many metropolitan areas that are gradually becoming far more diverse than in earlier decades. St. Louis Park shows growth in numbers of African-American residents, Asian residents and residents reporting two or more races in their background. These growing populations are particularly strong in youth and young adult age groups, indicating concentration of growth in young families. The committee also discussed the wide variety of religious and social groups in St. Louis Park. Development of the program and specific design for the Community Center should be mindful of differing cultural norms that are present in this diverse population and look for creative ways to make the center welcoming to all St. Louis Park residents. Geography of Physical Activity Minnesota ranks #5 in the country for most active states with over 57% of the population participating in one or more high- calorie burning activity. (Source: 2012 SGMA Report) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 69 ______________________________________________________________________________ 7 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 2.3 Trends in Community Center Facilities Community Centers have evolved over time to serve an increasingly wide range of activity types and age groups. Many Centers incorporate elements which in the past may have been thought of as stand-alone facilities, such as fitness centers, learning centers, libraries, activity centers, art centers, theaters and performance spaces, municipal offices and service centers, tourism bureaus and even shopping and dining. Connections to parks, pedestrian paths and bike paths are more commonly incorporated as well. Throughout these changes, we observe that the most successful community centers aggregate activities which blend the needs of their citizens with the unique identity of their city to create a Center that is buzzing with activity from morning to evening at all times of the year. Top Trends in Community Centers Inclusion and diversity Social interaction as a gateway in all activities Multi-generational programming Integrated programming for disabilities Health and wellness Whole Person Beyond “Exercise” to healthy lifestyle Encouraging inactive people to join in Crossover programming Special welcoming events or classes A growing challenge in recent years has been how best to support the health of community members. Several overall population trends bring health challenges directly into the Community Center, such as seniors who strive to live at home as they age, rising trends in childhood obesity, and wider integration into community activities of the disabled or chronically ill. While response to public health needs must be shared among many community institutions, the Community Center has a strong role in encouraging participation in social and physical activities. One of the best ways to do this is to work to lower the inactivity rate across all age groups – encourage ongoing involvement in activities that interest St. Louis Park’s citizens. (Source: 2012 SGMA Report) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 70 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 2.4 Community Interest Survey In 2011, the City of St. Louis Park conducted a Community Interest Survey on a wide variety of topics related to life in SLP. One section asked respondents to choose what they like most about living in SLP. The responses clearly show that people value the Amenities that the city offers, the Feel of the community and the convenient Location to work, shopping and family. As the Community Center project moves forward these positive elements will be important to incorporate in siting and design decisions. The survey also included questions related to a potential future Community Center. Respondents were asked about their level of interest in various kinds of facilities. The top five elements identified when respondents were asked to name the three elements they most wanted in the community were: 1.Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2.Swimming pool – indoor 3.Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4.Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5.Natural open space Overall, a majority of respondents identified the following elements as items they were interested in seeing in a future Community Center: Program Element Very Interested & Somewhat Interested Indoor Swimming Pool 71% Indoor Walking/Running Track 69% Fitness Area w/Exercise Equipment 68% Exercise/Yoga Class Space 57% Space for Socializing 53% Indoor Playground 52% Gymnasium 50% Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 71 ______________________________________________________________________________ 9 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 3.FACILITY PROGRAM The Feasibility Study started from a strong groundwork of information gathered by the City over the past several years regarding interest in community and recreation amenities. In 2012, the City formed a Task Force to create a preliminary program. This program was compared with current industry and demographic trends in St. Louis Park in order to create a recommended program need. Gymnasium The gym is proposed to hold two full-size floors with a drop down curtain in the middle separating them. There will be a set of bleachers that pull out from the wall on each side. At this time we are considering a multi-purpose poured floor rather than a traditional wood floor. There are two reasons for this. First, it is less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain. Second, it can be used for multi-purpose events including all sports, tricycles and other equipment used for little tyke events. It can also be used for special events where tables and chairs are set up without worrying about scratching the wood floors. Staff envisions programming the gyms as well as having them open for drop-in basketball. The current gyms in the schools are overused by traveling sports so there is no time for kids and adults to drop-in and shoot baskets. We would also like to look at an area in the back of one of the courts where we could drop in a batting cage similar to what Chaska and other communities do in their gymnasiums. Aquatics The trend in pool construction is to have areas for lap swimming, deep water and leisure/fun areas. To accommodate that, we are proposing a lap pool with six lanes that would have deep water at one end. The deep water could be used for deep water events (scuba diving classes, etc.) as well as hold a diving board and a climbing wall. The leisure pool would have youth play features and slides with a zero depth entry area. An ADA accessible ramp is recommended for the lap pool. That will allow all ages and abilities access to the pool as well as allow us to hold specialty classes for people with MS or those recovering from surgeries. This is another reason we are exploring a partnership with a physical therapy group. Swimming lessons could be held at either or both pools depending on the age of the kids. At this time, Community Education runs the swimming lessons at the schools. We will explore a partnership with them. Because of the cleaning issues associated with a hot tub or spa, staff is not recommending one for this facility. Drop-in Child Care This child care is only for parents and care givers who are using the facility. This is a facility that can be used by people who are at the building for a period of 1 - 2 hours. We are not proposing full-time day care. Community Room The capacity for this room wasn’t fully defined in the Task Force process. From the feedback received from the Council and residents, staff is proposing a room with a capacity of approximately 250 people. The proposed room would be approximately 4,000 - 4,500 square feet and hold 55 - 60 round tables. A caterer’s kitchen will likely need to be attached so that the room can be used by a variety of user groups. This room can be reserved for a variety of functions and events. The Banquet Room at the Rec Center holds up to 160 people. They receive requests for various events that they are unable to accommodate because of the current size of the Banquet Room. Staff recommends that this room be designed as a larger room to allow for other uses. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 72 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Commons/Gathering Place This would be near the front entrance and serve as a gathering place for people in the community. The furniture would be stationary. The coffee shop/café would be adjacent to this space. Kid’s Play Area The Task Force discussed this being adjacent to the drop-in day care. It was proposed to have a climbing stationary feature along with a large motor play area with a variety of toys for kids to play with. Track The goal is to make this as long as possible so there are fewer laps to the mile. The track is shown above the gymnasium and fitness room. Fitness The two components of fitness are the exercise equipment and fitness studios where classes are held. Since the trends in fitness classes change, we want to be able to adapt to those new classes. We are proposing three rooms: large, medium and small to accommodate a variety of classes. Actual sizes of the rooms are still being researched. Appropriate storage needs to be adjacent to the rooms to hold equipment such as mats, balls, bikes, etc. Party Rooms One of the biggest revenue generators in other community centers is the ability to hold birthday parties. Staff is proposing party rooms near the pool and possibly near the Kid’s Play area. “Back of House” Areas While the Task Force did an excellent job of synthesizing the survey data and developing program content, they didn’t spend time on the support areas that make the community center work. It was understood that this phase of planning would do that. HGA has assessed the storage needs as well as rooms to hold the mechanical systems, size of locker rooms, number of bathroom stalls and length/width of hallways. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 73 ______________________________________________________________________________ 11 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Program Summary: Gymnasium 14,300 nsf Aquatics Center 16,610 nsf Locker Rooms 5,400 nsf Drop-in Childcare 1,830 nsf Kids Play/Flex Area 2,800 nsf Community Gathering Space 9,300 nsf Fitness Program Spaces 17,040 nsf Office and Program Support 1,090 nsf Lobbies and Other 1,150 nsf Building Services 1,220 nsf Subtotal Net Square Feet 70,740 nsf Non-assignable 33,289 nsf net to gross multiplier 1.47 Total Area 104,029 gsf Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 74 ______________________________________________________________________________ 12 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 75 ______________________________________________________________________________ 13 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 76 ______________________________________________________________________________ 14 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 77 ______________________________________________________________________________ 15 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 78 ______________________________________________________________________________ 16 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 79 ______________________________________________________________________________ 17 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 80 ______________________________________________________________________________ 18 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 81 ______________________________________________________________________________ 19 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4. SITE EVALUATIONS 4.1 Park View Identifying a clear project vision was seen as a necessary first step in analyzing program needs for the St. Louis Park Community Center Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 82 ______________________________________________________________________________ 20 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.SITE EVALUATIONS 4.1 Option 1: Urban Edge West The site includes the purchase of the building where the American Legion sits, as well as the need to acquire some property from the owner of the Burlington Coat Factory site to accommodate parking (both are included in the $2,200,000 listed in the line item for assumed site acquisition cost). This site is the most costly from a capital perspective for two reasons. The first is the purchase of private property needed to construct the site. In addition, there is less space available so program components would have to be stacked on top of each other. This more urban design is more expensive to construct, at a cost estimate of $50,506,507. 4.1.1 Site Analysis Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 83 ______________________________________________________________________________ 21 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.1.2 Concept Plan Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 84 ______________________________________________________________________________ 22 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.1.3 Cost Estimate Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 85 ______________________________________________________________________________ 23 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.2 Option 2: Gateway The “Gateway” design has the new portion of the building located where the current Rec Center parking lot is located. A parking ramp would be built on the green space south of the current Rec Center. The Community Room would be located on the site across the street hear the Melrose Center. A unique piece of this would include a skyway that links the two sites. Although this provides a unique architectural feature, it also adds approximately $2.1 million for the construction of a skyway. The basketball court and sand volleyball court would have to be relocated to the site near the Melrose Center. The skate park would also have to be relocated since that area would be turned into a parking lot. The cost estimate for this site design is $47,539,672. 4.2.1 Site Analysis Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 86 ______________________________________________________________________________ 24 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.2.2 Concept Plan Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 87 ______________________________________________________________________________ 25 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.2.3 Cost Estimate Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 88 ______________________________________________________________________________ 26 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.3 Option 3: Parkview The “Parkview” design contains all of the program components, including the Community Room, on the Wolfe Park site. A parking deck is then constructed over the current parking lot. The basketball court and sand volleyball court would have to be relocated to the site near the Melrose Center. The skate park would also have to be relocated since that area would be turned into a parking lot. The cost estimate for the “Parkview” design is $45,257,640. 4.3.1 Concept Plan Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 89 ______________________________________________________________________________ 27 ÜÖ~=Åçããáëëáçå=åìãÄÉê==NRTRJMMPJMM=====================================================^ìÖìëí=NOI=OMNP= `áíó=çÑ=p~áåí=içìáë=m~êâW=`çããìåáíó=`ÉåíÉê=cÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=píìÇó =================== 4.3.2 Cost Estimate Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 90 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design Report November 26, 20141575-004Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 91 Table of ContentsStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 92 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004TABLE OF CONTENTS:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY4DESIGN NARRATIVESite Infl uence5Architectural Interpretation 11SITESite Massing Studies 17Architectural Site Plan 24Outdoor Program 25Landscape Elevation 27FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS Building Program32First Floor Plan 33Second Floor Plan 34 Parking Analysis 34Typical Parking Plan 36Building Elevations 37Material Palette 38RENDERINGSEntry Birdseye 42Entry Courtyard 43Community Center Commons 44Community Terrace 45View From The Southeast 46Council Workshop Comments 48SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES Sustainable Strategies - Overview 52Sustainable Strategies - Aquatics 55 Preliminary LEED Checklist 59 COST ESTIMATE and PHASING 66 APPENDIXCivil Plan - Existing Conditions 74Civil Plan - Demo Plan75Civil Plan - Site Plan76 Engineering Narratives 78Code Summary 89Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 93 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 94 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004Executive Summary The St. Louis park Community center is a 103,000 SF facility located adjacent to the existing St. Louis Park Rec Center within Wolfe Park.In August of 2013 HGA completed a feasibility study for the City of St. Louis Park to assist in evaluating and planning for a new community center facility. This report documents the schematic design of the Community center, and is a comprehensive summary of all information presented and discussed as a part of the schematic design process.The schematic design of the project was developed by HGA in conjunction with City of St. Louis Park staff.This phase is the initial design phase of the project which further develops the site plan, program spaces, building fl oor plans, design concepts, material palette, etc.The Space Program for the community center was clarifi ed during the Feasibility Study which started from a strong groundwork of information gathered by the City over the past several years regarding interest in community and recreation amenities. In 2012, the City formed a Task Force to create a preliminary program. This program was compared with current industry and demographic trends in St. Louis Park in order to create a recommended program need. The schematic design process studied a variety of arrangements and adjacencies for the primary programmatic spaces as defi ned by the task force and categorized in the feasibility study.The project was presented to St. Louis Park City Council on October 27, 2014The development of the Schematic Design was a collaborative effort between:City of St. Louis Park StaffHGA - ArchitectRJM - Cost EstimatingUS Aquatics - Aquatics ConsultantAET - Soils Engineer and Environmental ConsultantFacility ProgramGymnasiumThe gym is proposed to hold two full-size basketball courts with a drop down curtain in the middle separating them. There will be a set of bleachers that pull out from the wall on each side. At this time we are considering a multi-purpose poured fl oor rather than a traditional wood fl oor. There are two reasons for this. First, it is less expensive to build and less expensive to maintain. Second, it can be used for multi-purpose events including all sports, tricycles and other equipment used for children’s events. It can also be used for special events where tables and chairs are set up without worrying about scratching the wood fl oors. Staff envisions programming the gyms as well as having them open for drop-in basketball. The current gyms in the schools are overused by traveling sports so there is no time for kids and adult and child drop-in activities. We would also like to look at an area in the back of one of the courts where we could drop in a batting cage similar to what Chaska and other communities do in their gymnasiums.AquaticsThe trend in pool construction is to have areas for lap swimming, deep water and leisure/fun areas. To accommodate that, we are proposing a lap pool with six lanes that would have deep water at one end. The deep water could be used for deep water events (scuba diving classes, etc.) as well as hold a diving board and a climbing wall. The leisure pool would have youth play features and slides with a zero depth entry area. An ADA accessible ramp is recommended for the lap pool. That will allow all ages and abilities access to the pool as well as allow us to hold specialty classes for people with MS or those recovering from surgeries. This is another reason we are exploring a partnership with a physical therapy group. Swimming lessons could be held at either or both pools depending on the age of the kids. At this time, Community Education runs the swimming lessons at the schools. We will explore a partnership with them. Because of the cleaning issues associated with a hot tub or spa, staff is not recommending one for this facility.Drop-in Child CareThis child care is only for parents and care givers who are using the facility. This is a facility that can be used by people who are at the building for a period of 1 - 2 hours. We are not proposing full-time day care.Kid’s Play AreaThe Task Force discussed this being adjacent to the drop-in day care. It was proposed to have a climbing stationary feature along with a large motor play area with a variety of toys for kids to play with.4 Executive SummaryCommunity RoomThe capacity for this room wasn’t fully defi ned in the Task Force process. From the feedback received from the Council and residents, staff is proposing a room with a capacity of approximately 250 people. A caterer’s kitchen is provided so that the room can be used by a variety of user groups. This room can be reserved for a variety of functions and events. The Banquet Room at the Rec Center holds up to 160 people. They receive requests for various events that they are unable to accommodate because of the current size of the Banquet Room. Staff recommends that this room be designed as a larger room to allow for other uses.Commons/Gathering PlaceThis would be near the front entrance and serve as a gathering place for people in the community. The furniture would be stationary. The coffee shop/café would be adjacent to this space.Indoor TrackThe track is located along the perimeter of the entire second fl oor of the project and connects the gymnasium, fi tness areas, entrance and terrace.The track is one of the wow factors of the building. As a skyway elementas it is visible at the entry and terrace public spaces, provides great views of the park, and at 5 laps to the mile is longer than most indoor tracks.FitnessThe two components of fi tness are the exercise equipment and fi tness studios where classes are held. Since the trends in fi tness classes change, we want to be able to adapt to those new classes. We are proposing three rooms: large, medium and small to accommodate a variety of classes. Actual sizes of the rooms are still being researched. Appropriate storage needs to be adjacent to the rooms to hold equipment such as mats, balls, bikes, etc.Party RoomsOne of the biggest revenue generators in other community centers is the ability to hold birthday parties. Staff is proposing party rooms near the pool and possibly near the Kid’s Play area.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 95 5 Site Infl uenceMovement: How you move through a space infl uences your experience and your memory of a place.Movement can be experienced in many different ways.Physical movement such as walking along a path can be purposeful such as a straight line, or leisurely such as a winding path.Ones experience can be effected by a myriad of factors - the surface they are walking on, the defi nition of the path, or the quality of light and sound they move through.Movement can be formal and symbolic - such as a hovering water slide, Leaves trembling in the wind or the movement of a babbling brook.SITE INFLUENCEThe design of the Saint Louis Park Community Center is driven by the spatial and experiential qualities of Wolfe Park.The beauty of Wolfe park, as a respite in a dense urban setting is the variety and unique character of spaces it offers. The park serves many different users, activities, and age groups.From an early morning basketball game, a mid morning trip to the playground or the outdoor pool, an afternoon stroll around Wolfe Lake or by the waterfall, to an evening performance at the Veterans memorial amphitheater As does the park, The community center serves many different types of patrons: individuals, small groups, and large gatherings. All of these groups co-exist in one facility, and all of these groups together represent the community.Through it’s spatial organization, internal physical and visual connections, materials and scale, the Community Center serves to provide program spaces and community gathering for all residents.The design qualities and aesthetic of the new Community Center draw infl uence from many aspects of the park: MovementView Light / Texture / ScaleThe architecture of the Saint Louis Park Community Center serves to create a parklike experience by drawing from the qualities inherent in its setting. It is an interpretation of the beautiful and experiential qualities that make Wolfe Park an important amenity to the community.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 96 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-0046 Site Infl uence - MovementStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 97 7 Site Infl uence - ViewView : Ones vantage point helps to visually and physically navigate through a space, and provides an initial impression of the qualities of a space. Wolfe Park provides a multitude of vantage points within its boundaries, from the outside looking in, and from inside looking out. Intimate spaces ,open lawns, long framed views, changes in elevation and groves of trees provide one an orientation to the park, as well providing many different ways to understand, experience and appreciate the park. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 98 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-0048 Site Infl uence - ViewStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 99 9 Site Infl uence - Light / Texture / ScaleLight / Texture / Scale: The variety of spaces in Wolfe Park are experienced in large part by how theyare defi ned by light, and how one moves through them.Tree canopies hover above at different heights - mediating light as a high dappled ceiling, an intimate shaded grove, or a dark lush edge hovering above a silvery pond.The foliage and plant life of the park mediate light as well as providing a canvas of textures of different scales. This richness of visual texture creates spaces with unique character and scale. Scale is relative and is informed by where you are at, and how you are viewing something.Up-close a leaf is seen as a unique species, size, color, texture, or transparency. At a distance this same leaf becomes part of a fi eld of leaves, some similar, some different, coming together to defi ne an edge, a ceiling, or an autumnal tapestry of color.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 100 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00410 Site Infl uence - Light / Texture / ScaleStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 101 11 Architectural InterpretationArchitectural InterpretationAs was indicated in the site Infl uence narrative, the St. Louis Park Community Center lies within the rich natural setting of Wolfe Park. While the park provides connection to the natural world, it is in effect a designed space within an urban setting.Architectural interpretation begins to look at abstract ideas and qualities of space, materials and form which would serve the community cen-ter program and help to connect its program to its park setting.Architectural precedents take many forms. In this case the design process began with an investigation of architectural qualities and characteristics.These categories are looked at specifi cally in the context of this site,the building program and the spatial and experiential qualities desired in the community center. While the images are abstract and intentionally not solely architectural spaces, they help to inform building massing, form, and experiential potential. The following categories, along with the selected images are abstractions which help to clarify, refi ne and simplify critical ideas and ways of assembling space. Distance / Texture / ScaleMass / VolumeAtmosphereAll of these qualities are intrinsically intertwined and related.Separating, categorizing, and defi ning their relevance to the specifi c project helps to bridge the interpretation between site qualities, Architectural constructions and experience. DISTANCE / TEXTURE / SCALE:In close proximity a surface pattern or texture relates to the scale of a person. The size of a brick, the texture of gravel, or the scale of a window.At a distance these textures and patterns have different meaning. Where a brick once related to the scale of a human hand, now it becomes a fi eld of monochromatic color, or a larger pattern.Light too, changes from illumination of ones surroundings to a pattern or fi eld of objects, to illumination on a surface, or to the form of the illumination itself. As distance changes, depth of fi eld changes the focus of what is seen. Pattern, texture, light and form are modifi ed from objects which are the center of focus, to background information.This concept is particularly interesting in a setting such as Wolfe park.With its diversity of uses and its size, the Community center can both occupy its site, and become a part of the background of the park, allowing the park to thrive and not be overpowered.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 102 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00412 Architectural Interpretation - Distance / Texture / ScaleStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 103 13 Architectural Interpretation - Mass / VolumeMASS / VOLUME: The defi nition of an objects mass and volume is crucial to its perception and how one experiences space.It is possible to reduce the visual mass of an object by redefi ning its boundaries.Deconstructing the boundaries of a simple massive form invites a spatial richness and allows its boundaries to be blurred, creating an interplay of inside and outside, bottom and top, and open or closed.This blurred boundary enriches ones spatial experience and strengthens their connection to the site.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 104 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00414 Architectural Interpretation - Mass / VolumeStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 105 15 Architectural Interpretation - Light / AtmosphereLIGHT / ATMOSPHERE: Light is in effect treated as another material in the architectural palette. Its presence is inevitable and impacts our experience of all other materials.Light renders the world we inhabit.It brings colors to life, or mutes them.Its contrasts of brightness, intensity, shade and shadow effect not only how or if we see space, but contribute to the mood of the space and our experience of it.Active spaces, quiet spaces, spaces of movement and of restfulness and contemplation - are all impacted and accentuated by their relationship with and use of light.By understanding the effects of light we can craft the mood of a space and in turn ones experience.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 106 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00416 Architectural Interpretation - Light / AtmosphereStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 107 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 108 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004SITEStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 109 19 Site Massing StudiesSite Massing Studies:The initial massing studies asked different questions of the program organization, and how the community center engaged Wolfe Park.Three options were considered:CompactThe Compact option consolidated all of the program spaces as tightly together as possible. StretchThe Stretch option located all of the program spaces as far north as possible to have the least impact on the setting of the existing park. This option proposed a 4 level parking structure to allow the community center to be as far north and removed from the park as possible, stretching the building along the south facade of the parking structure to have occupied building on the park vs. parking ramp facade.PavillionThe Pavillion option dispersed the major program elements and connected them with indoor and outdoor public spaces.This option allowed the park and the building boundaries to overlap and begin to blur, and also attempted to give each program group its own sense of identity. Discussion:Three key points were discussed during the presentation of the site massing studies.1. It was determined that a rebuilding of theRec Center lobby in it’s entiriety, as seen inthe Compact and Stretch options was notfeasable for operations, nor was it fi nanciallydesireable at this time.2. The current Rec Center lobby confi gurationis in the shape of a wedge to avoid disrup-tion of a 90” storm water main line that runsthrough the site. Disruption of this line wasnot economically desireable. Any schemeshould accomodate and leave in place theexisting storm water main.3. The facade treatment of the parking rampalong 36th street will be critical in all options.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 110 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00420 Site Massing StudiesCompactStretchPavillionFVSURJUDPRIÀFHVTIWÀFHZRUNURRPVTIWDOWUDLQLQJRIÀFHVTIWFDOWUDLQLQJRIÀFHVTIWVVWRUDJHVTIWVTIWinupinone wayoutdown25311296481013.113.211.111.211.411.3inone wayoutdownup downup13.213.111.11611.311.211.42389451012 DTXDWLFVSURJUDPRIÀFHVTIW VWDIIRIÀFHZRUNURRPVTIWSHUVRQDOWUDLQLQJRIÀFHVTIW SK\VLFDOWUDLQLQJRIÀFHVTIW ÀWQHVVVWRUDJHVTIWRIÀFHVVTIW DTXDWLFVSURJUDPRIÀFHVTIW VWDIIRIÀFHZRUNURRPVTIW SHUVRQDOWUDLQLQJRIÀFHVTIW SK\VLFDOWUDLQLQJRIÀFHVTIW ÀWQHVVVWRUDJHVTIWRIÀFHVVTIWinupinone wayoutdown18211.311.111.435491013.113.261211.2Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 111 21 Site Massing StudiesFinal site massing model:The fi nal site massing plan and model combined desireable attributes of all schemes. Primarily a combination of the stretch and pavillion schemes the fi nal massing minimizied site impact by consolodating the building as far north as possible, while opening up at its center to connect the primary community gathering spaces with the park.The current site and building plans are a refl ection of the fi nal site massing model shown. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 112 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00422 Site Massing StudiesStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 113 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 114 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00424 Architectural Site Plan1. FORESTED SCREENThe perimeter of the site is treated as a landscape tapestry. Planted with a variety of species with varying heights and foliage colors. Extending the park to the streets edge, The landscaped “screen” is artfully illuminated to provide visual interest and depth, shrouding the parking structure and highlighting the natural character of the park.2. PARKING STRUCTUREThree levels above grade172 stalls per level = 688 stalls3. ENTRY DRIVEThe entry drive off of west 36th street serves as the main entry and provides vehicular access to the ramp, access to bus drop off and parking, as well as pedestrian access. The entrance off or Monterey Drive serves the parking ramp.4. ENTRY COURTThe entry court, as an extension of the building commons and the Community terrace acts as a gathering space and a pedestrian connection between the entry drive,the common spaces of the community center, and the Rec Center. The landscaped Western side of the court is home to the relocated Evelyn Raymond Sculpture5. COMMUNITY TERRACEThe terrace serves as a connection between Wolfe Park and the commons space. It provides an intimate setting for events taking place in the community room. 6. RENOVATED HOCKEY ENTRANCEIn an effort to create a more cohesive entry court, the existing hockey lobby will be replaced with one of a more appropriate scale and material palette. The renovated entrance will have a reduced vestibule and a waiting area which overlooks the entry court and drop off area.7. WEST COURTYARDThe west courtyard is an intimate landscaped area between the existing Rec Center and the new Community Center.Views into the courtyard greet patrons using the indoor and outdoor aquatics as they arrive at the locker rooms.8. OUTDOOR SHOWERSLocated adjacent to the locker rooms, as well as the West Courtyard, the outdoor showers serve the outdoor aquatics program, and have the opportunity to be a “water feature” more than just a functional shower area.9. RELOCATED LAWNThe lawn is a relocation of the picnic space that exists on the current site in the area of the new Community Center. It will be replaced as the same area as the existing lawn.10. DELIVERY ACCESS DRIVEThe lawn is a relocation of the picnic space that exists on the current site in the area of the new Community Center. It will be replaced as the same area as the existing lawn.11. BUS DROP OFFThe bus drop off is sized to accommodate 3 buses.12. BUS PARKINGThere are 2 bus parking areas - each accommodating 2 buses13. RELOCATED OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURT14. RELOCATED OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURT15. OUTDOOR REFRIGERATED RINK - BY OTHERS100’150’ 200’250’225’115133112 1314546789121210WEST 36TH STREETMONTEREY DRIVE Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 115 25 Outdoor Program SpacesSurfacing - Patterned Paving and Garden SurfacingPlanting - Canopy/Ornamental Trees and Perennial/Grass MassingsFurnishings - Fixed and Movable Seating, Integrated Site FurnishingsLighting - Pedestrian-Scale and ArtisticStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 116 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00426 Outdoor Program SpacesOutdoor Program Spaces:1. ENTRY DRIVE and ENTRY COURTIn combination, these outdoor spacesserve as a continuous plaza, entry drop-off, and extension of the building lobby toaccommodate an infl ux of gathering. Similarto European plazas, the entry drive and entrycourt are mediated by a curbless design anddelineated by subtle changes in surfacingpattern and texture. This supports an open,seamless pedestrian experience andencourages slower vehicular movement.A directional pattern of lighting and rhythm of vegetation leads patrons through the site and visually connects the main entrance with the entry court.A garden space with integrated benches is nestled between the new Community Center and existing Rec Center to provide a space of respite and foster small group gathering. On the Western edge of this garden space, a screen of evergreens and ornamental trees provide a backdrop for the relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture. 2. COMMUNITY TERRACEThe community terrace visually connectsthe interior building view to Wolfe Park andphysically extends the common space of thecommunity center.A paved surface pattern on the North half carries the entry court aesthetic through the lobby area and a more informal garden surfacing material transitions the terrace space into the adjacent park space.Smaller light fi xtures and a combination of fi xed and movable seating provide a more intimate setting for events and small gatherings. Canopy and ornamental trees scale the space and provide shade. A low, architectural wall physically delineates the terrace and Wolfe Park, while allowing the space to remain open to views. 3. WEST COURTYARDThe west courtyard is an intimatelandscaped area between the existing RecCenter and the new Community Center.Views into the courtyard greet patronsusing the indoor and outdoor aquatics asthey arrive at the locker rooms.A formal bosque of trees mark the exterior entry sequence and clusters of multi-stemmed, understory trees within garden surfacing material structure a more informal interior courtyard experience. Movable furniture accommodates a variety of seating confi gurations.112 23Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 117 27 Landscape Elevation / Forested screenA forested edge recalls qualities of Wolfe Park while artfully buffering the property edge.Mature street trees are left intact and in-fi lled with evergreen and deciduous vegetation types to create a tapestry of year-round interest. Deciduous trees and shrubs provide a dynamic show of color and textures against a consistent evergreen backdrop.The rhythm of planting types and scales screen the parking structure and extend the park typology to the edge of the property.SpSpriringngSuSummmmererFaFallllWiWintntererMonterey Drive/Parking Ramp FaceEntry From 36th Street West/Proposed Building FaceStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 118 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004The forested edge also provides the structure for community and ecological programming. Deciduous and evergreen trees soften the pedestrian edge and generate a shaded, welcoming environment for recreation and circulation. Openings in the forest edge set the stage for pedestrian-scaled sculpture installations, while artistic lighting and parking structure screen elements offer moments of interest along the way. In addition to extending the Community Center’s recreation and art programming efforts, the forested edge also extends the park’s ecological value. A density of native species provides habitat and the pervious forest surface serves as a storm water management opportunity.ReRecrcreaeatitiononCuCultlturureeEcEcolologogicicalal V Valalueue28 Landscape Elevation / Forested screen36th Street West/Existing Building FaceStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 119 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 120 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONSStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 121 Building Program:The building program has evolved from the feasability study program to include comments from City of St. Louis Park Staff during the Schematic Design phase.All program spaces are accomodated within the fl oor plans.The numbers indicated correspond with those indicated on the plan, and indicate major program components.31 Building ProgramStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 122 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00432 Building Program ! !"" ""#$!%$"""$&$’#$()$*#$+,,"##-.."/$""01." "&$’#$$%&’()’*2%’$3$2%’$43$&$’#$+,’0’55%’$, , $03$#$’’03$53$6.$3$5..17’#$..-..1/" "#$ -.//2 002 $’1311$%’ ", ",895$:$%’#’$3#$%’$5#4%’ ’$5’’4$’’$’;%’%’0$$’!, !,%’$’#$3*$%$-.. 3*$43$1’ 3*$#$ &$" "#$ )!7$"$#", ,$0#+#$’’#$<*5#$!!/$3$ 0/",,/%$’7$-..%$’7$-..#$1=1/$’7$,"" ,""2’3$’1#$ $>’1$)’#$0$$-..1#57$1’;" ")44251’’$4$’’)4465##Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 123 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00433 First Floor Plan1. LOBBY AND FRONT DESK2. COMMONS AREA3. COMMUNITY ROOM250 seats4. CONCESSIONS5. PARTY ROOM6. OFFICE AND PROGRAM SUPPORT7. INDOOR KID’S PLAY AREA8. DROP-IN CHILD CARE9. WOMENS LOCKER ROOM10. MENS LOCKER ROOM11. FAMILY LOCKER ROOM12. LEISURE POOL13. LAP POOL14. GYMNASIUM15. TRAINING DESK16. LARGE STUDIO SPACE17. MEDIUM STUDIO SPACE18. SMALL STUDIO SPACE19. CARDIO20. CIRCUIT TRAINING21. FREE WEIGHTS22. RUNNING / WALKING TRACK5 LAPS = 1 MILE23. BUILDING SERVICES24. MECHANICAL25. GREEN ROOF26. RENOVATED HOCKEY ENTRANCE27. ENTRY COURTw/ relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture28. COMMUNITY TERRACE29. WEST COURTYARD30. PARKING STRUCTURETHREE LEVELS ABOVE GRADE = 688 STALLS31. PARKING LOBBY32. PARKING VEHICLE ENTRANCE262722816292311109874551213355140’8’ 16’32’Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 124 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00434 Second Floor Plan15182421201922252525241716220’8’ 16’32’1. LOBBY AND FRONT DESK2. COMMUNITY ROOM250 seats3. COMMONS AREA4. CONCESSIONS5. PARTY ROOM6. OFFICE AND PROGRAM SUPPORT7. INDOOR KID’S PLAY AREA8. DROP-IN CHILD CARE9. WOMENS LOCKER ROOM10. MENS LOCKER ROOM11. FAMILY LOCKER ROOM12. LEISURE POOL13. LAP POOL14. GYMNASIUM15. TRAINING DESK16. LARGE STUDIO SPACE17. MEDIUM STUDIO SPACE18. SMALL STUDIO SPACE19. CARDIO20. CIRCUIT TRAINING21. FREE WEIGHTS22. RUNNING / WALKING TRACK5 LAPS = 1 MILE23. BUILDING SERVICES24. MECHANICAL25. GREEN ROOF26. RENOVATED HOCKEY ENTRANCE27. ENTRY COURTw/ relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture28. COMMUNITY TERRACE29. WEST COURTYARD30. PARKING STRUCTURETHREE LEVELS ABOVE GRADE = 688 STALLS31. PARKING LOBBY32. PARKING VEHICLE ENTRANCEStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 125 Parking Analysis:The feasibility study took a high level look at parking requirements, which was refi ned during the schematic design phase.The current design for the parking ramp was derived from the City of St. Louis Park parking regulations sec. 36-361 and table 36-361 (a). For institutional uses such as Community Centers the parking requirements shall be based upon the uses within the building.Per direction from city staff, and the Community Center Task force, the parking structure shall accommodate parking for the new facility as well as accommodating the existing 261 spaces currently provided as surface parking.The site design of the Community Center locates the project as far north as possible, resulting in a parking structure which is three structured levels above an on grade park-ing surface. The current parking structure is planned to accommodate approximately 172 vehicles per level for a total of 688 vehi-cles.The summary calculation below lists all primary spaces used to calculate the required parking. Existing Spaces261Public Assembly -Community Room 84 (1 space / 3 seats)Sport and Health Club203 (1 space / 200 sf of non court area)Pool160 (1 space / 50 sf of pool deck)Offi ce10(1 space / 250 sf)+5% contingency36SUB-TOTAL754-10% transit reduction-76TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES 678Coordination between City of St. Louis Park Planning, and the design team will endeavor to reduce the required parking count as much as possible, while accommodating patrons during the highest parking demand events.35 Parking AnalysisStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 126 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00436 Typical Parking Plan0’ 8’ 16’32’303132321. LOBBY AND FRONT DESK2. COMMUNITY ROOM250 seats3. COMMONS AREA4. CONCESSIONS5. PARTY ROOM6. OFFICE AND PROGRAM SUPPORT7. INDOOR KID’S PLAY AREA8. DROP-IN CHILD CARE9. WOMENS LOCKER ROOM10. MENS LOCKER ROOM11. FAMILY LOCKER ROOM12. LEISURE POOL13. LAP POOL14. GYMNASIUM15. TRAINING DESK16. LARGE STUDIO SPACE17. MEDIUM STUDIO SPACE18. SMALL STUDIO SPACE19. CARDIO20. CIRCUIT TRAINING21. FREE WEIGHTS22. RUNNING / WALKING TRACK5 LAPS = 1 MILE23. BUILDING SERVICES24. MECHANICAL25. GREEN ROOF26. RENOVATED HOCKEY ENTRANCE27. ENTRY COURTw/ relocated Evelyn Raymond sculpture28. COMMUNITY TERRACE29. WEST COURTYARD30. PARKING STRUCTURETHREE LEVELS ABOVE GRADE = 688 STALLS31. PARKING LOBBY32. PARKING VEHICLE ENTRANCEStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 127 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00437 Building ElevationsSOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONmaterial paletterunning trackrunning trackexisting recreation centeraquaticsgymnasiumcommunity roomaquatics beyondcommunity gatheringcommunity gatheringparking rampentry from montereywest courtyardcommunity roomlobbygymnasiumparking ramplink to recreation center locker roomsparking rampaquaticslocker roomsStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 128 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00438 Material PaletteSemi Refl ective GlassInternally Shaded GlassColored Precast ConcreteClear GlassClear Glass with Frit Spandrel Glass with FritAnodized AluminumGreen RoofStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 129 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 130 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004RENDERINGSStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 131 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 132 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00442 Entry BirdseyeStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 133 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00443 Entry CourtyardStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 134 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00444 Community Center CommonsStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 135 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00445 Community TerraceStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 136 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00446 View from the SoutheastStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 137 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 138 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00448 Council Workshop CommentsCity Council Work Session Comments:The Schematic Design of the St. Louis Park Community Center was presented to City Council during a work session on October 27th, 2014.Below is a summary of questions and comments made by council. These issues will be addressed by the project and design team during the next phase of development.1.Locating the Parking ramp on 36th street / Monterey Drivecuts off views of the building.How do we make the building more visible?2.Can we activate the parking ramp edge/ facade andbring life / people spaces to the street vs. having just aparking structure?Is it possible to incorporate spaces like an integrated bus stopat the entry drive and West 36th street?3.Residents of St. Louis Park can currently walk from thebridge to the entry of the Rec Center and then up to 36thstreet. Many Residents use this route for travel through thecommunity. Will the Community gathering space / Commonsof the Community Center allow passage along this route tocontinue?How will the operations of the Community Center addresspatrons who have paid from those who are using communityspaces?4.How are bike routes accommodated and where dobicycles park?5.The pedestrian route from 36th street to the main entry willbe heavily used by pedestrians from the community and fromthe future Southwest Light rail. The entry drive feelsnarrow and does not feel like a main entry route to thebuilding. How can this entry drive be developed to be morepedestrian friendly, and to highlight the entry to the building?6.With the addition of the Community Center program thenumber of drop offs and pickups will increase.How does the entry court accommodate the number ofvehicles that we will see dropping off and picking up?7.How much bus parking do we actually need toaccommodate on site?8.The Community Center, Existing Rec Center, and theproposed Outdoor refrigerated rink all have a different designaesthetic and material palette. How do we bring thesepieces together to cohesively develop the site as a campus?Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 139 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 140 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIESStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 141 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00451 Sustainability Strategies HUMAN EXPERIENCEsatisfactionwell-beingperformanceBEST VALUEdo moreuse lessbuild lesslife-cycle valueTARGET PERFORMANCEFive-Zero PlanenergycarbonwaterwasteShaping the FutureZeroP L U SStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 142 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00452 Sustainability Strategies Sustainable Strategies overview:During the course of the schematic design HGA led a sustainability workshop with city staff. The focus of the workshop was to discuss sustainability as it applies to building construction, public perception and policy, and the cost of implementation. St Louis Park has a commitment to the health and wellness of its residents and sees the Community Center as an excellent opportunity to demonstrate this through sustainable initiatives. The committee reviewed several ideas that are culturally and physically specifi c to this project. The result of the workshop was a list of sustainable goals for the project:Enhance the Human Experience :• Connection w/ Nature• Occupant Health & Comfort• Responsible Corporate/Community CitizenCreate Value :• Do more with less• Positive Life Cycle Cost & ROI MetricsTarget Performance :• Energy Reduction / Carbon Reduction• Water Use Reduction• Waste Diversion• Material & Resource Use ReductionThe following is a list of sustainable strategies currently incorporated into the project:1. Use of low VOC materials and views to outdoors.2.High performance HVAC systems and lighting controls.3.Low fl ow plumbing fi xtures4. Reduced irrigation water5.Enhanced pool fi ltration and circulation system6. Diversion of construction waste and use of recycled and regionalmaterials7. Improved storm water management practices to exceed regulatoryrequirements8.Green roof over indoor aquatics program to reduce on site infi ltrationrequirements9. Encourage alternative transportation through connections to larger trailsystems for bikes and pedestrians and promoting bus and LRTinfrastructure.10. Utilization of measurement, verifi cation and commissioning to track andreport over-all building performance.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 143 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00453 Sustainability Strategies Enhance Human Experience Overall Satisfaction Connection w/ NatureOccupant Health/Comfort Perform Occupant SurveyFocus on Glass & ViewsUse Low VOC materials80% Satisfaction Plan for Improvement at < 80% Reduce Energy ConsumptionHigh Performance HVACLighting ControlsExisting Ice Cooling Waste HeatMeet MN Energy Code (ASHRAE 2010)10% ReductionDecrease Water UseBuilding Fixture ReductionIrrigation WaterPool Systems1993 Energy & Water ActLEED Baseline30% Reduction35%+ ReductionResource Use ReductionConst. Waste DiversionRecycled / Regional Materials50%10%/20% 75%+20%95%Total Embodied +30%Stormwater Management Quality & QuantityRegulatory RequirementsMinimal Discharge Off SiteBaselineMotivationStrategyGoalStretch Goal90%+50% reduction0 gal / Re-Use20% Reduction50% reductionZero Discharge Off Site / Re-UseTransportationLocal Bus/LRT – ShuttlesWalkscorePromote local infrastructureReduce parking needRenewable Energy SourcesPhotovoltaics & BIPV Study applicability & ROIImplement demonstrational applicationSolar ThermalMeasaurement, Verification, and CommissioningMeteringM&V PlanOn going CommissioningTrack and report overall building metrics 1yr Commissioning vs. Predicted EnergySub-MeteringYearly Re-commissioning < 10 year ROI systemStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 144 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00454 Sustainability Strategies The following strategies and accompanying graphic was discussed at the Sustainability workshop to determine which strategies were desirable and appropriate for the project, and to what extent they could be feasibly Implemented.Base Level Requirements (per City Standards and Codes) :• Storm waterCity/State requirements equal to sustainable best practice (LEED)Collection and storage on-site• EnergyNew code (ASHRAE 2010) + SLP B3/SB 2030 require signifi cant reductionsWill require systems upgrades from basic levelMetering and reporting requirements per B3Systems level commissioning per B3Sustainable Best Practices / Minimal Impact Upgrades :• Low Emitting MaterialsHGA standard specs , widely available products• Resource Use ReductionHGA standard specs + some targeted selections for recycled content /regional materials / certifi ed wood / salvaged materials / biobasedmaterials• Water Reduction30% per standard HGA suite of low-fl ow fi xtures Emerging technologies for pool systems water reductions• Daylighting & ViewsDesign best practice, can help energy reduction w/ lighting controls,Integral to power-all project mission• Alternative TransitReduce parking needs, promote local resources, bike amenities• Post Occupancy EvaluationIncluding improvements per results analysis• Building as a Teaching ToolEnergy displays/dashboard, educational signageFocused Strategies / Signifi cant Upgrades w/ Potential ROI :• EnergyAlternative systems choices, +30% reductionGeothermalAll LED lighting + advanced controlsChilled beams, radiant heatWaste heat capture from Ice making at new rink system• Water Re-UseStormwater capture cistern for irrigation, sewage conveyance• Advanced Measurement & Verifi cationOngoing commissioning/whole building commissioning , sub-metering ofenergy systems, dashboard reporting• Renewable Energy SystemsBuilding integrated photo voltaic, solar thermalStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 145 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00455 Sustainability Strategies - Aquatics Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 146 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00456 Sustainability Strategies - AquaticsStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 147 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00457 Sustainability Strategies - Aquatics Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 148 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00458 Sustainability Strategies - Aquatics Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 149 Certifi cations :•B3- voluntary for non State funded projects, required by SLP guidelines- similar to LEED but no marketable/promotional aspect- lower administration & application costs- No third party review and verifi cation•LEED- nationally recognized standard, marketable- offi cial “certifi cation” via third party review- admin costs of approx. 0.5%-2% of construction = +/-$200,000 at Cert/Silver level- proof of compliance in sustainable strategiesWhile LEED certifi cation has not been determined, the team reviewed a preliminary planning matrix and believes a LEED Certifi ed project is easily attainable. With some effort, the team thinks a LEED Gold certifi cation could be achieved. Additionally, the team identifi ed LEED Platinum as a stretch goal if there was a desire by the City to make a statement with this project.When evaluating strategies, the team encourages the City to look at long term value to the community and consider longer paybacks.59 Preliminary LEED ChecklistStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 150 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00460 Preliminary LEED Checklist !" ! "" # #$!%&’() *+%’,-. /0 0*%+’$-(-.! *’+*#&& !#1/2!# 3’+.4(-.) 5+212%%6’))7.)&%5212’4(-.- !!7.)&%$’4(#. 8%+ +#.! 7,9%+ +0. :;9%3 3%4440.! :;9%3 3%444<. 8=%9#&>% <.! 8=%%%3%%? 5’*’’’@52"A442:(!&>/%+%+%7’!&>:.:2%%5#&>! !%3+’:.!:2%%5,!!+’+444:! =:+/’!+) :()&>! !:()#>:(-&>1+’9+%7449%%! 2%&>2’+%82B&.!&&<3%%%86’42) 1%+’%3. 9,2%!>4->40>44?>44!&>444!!>C--4444!. 9+2>)><!63+3’ 4444) 2’!!+’9+%’74442- 2’%! !+’%%’+’%# 6%))449%%0 D+)#>%+%!!!’%’’ 4 !!"!#$:2’+%82B&.!&&<3%%%863333’@52"A3’3.D’ !&>.2%&’()&$!*& &%!4+,)" (&"!-.$!$!.&/! !$/%+%+%7C+%+’++’)&C>3 +%+$%%)#>Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 151 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00461 Preliminary LEED Checklist !" !!"!#$%&’()&$!*& &%!+,)" (&"!-.$!$!.&/! !$%9+3. *##>%’.! <#>%’.) B#>%’.- #&>% !.:"#&>%+%%!.!<#>). #>&>%).! &>-. &>%-.! !&>#.&>733%#.! !&>0 +!.#>% +’3+4<%:#&>%+%3%#&>440 10=;%:%3=! 2/ 9+=9"9!3+74=$=%%! =686%4=$=%%). =;"=).! =;*%91’%E44=$’-. 5+2’ F%38D=-.! 5+2=-.) 5+21=-.- 5+2:%=# =’: %%3386%3%=0. %5’/ ’+ 3’(0.! %/’%"%%<. /’%""%3(<.! /’%6%’’8D’3%%9%%?. "’@<#>%A*%’(?.! 6+@B&>%A%++3(#>+3’&>%%4+&>%’3.&>+3!&>+’%$%<#>3’4Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 152 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00462 Preliminary LEED Checklist !" !!"!#$%&’()&$!*& &%!+,)" (&"!-.$!$!.&/! !$1. 27%%:GB#>3G)&>31:GB#>3D+G<&>.! 27%%:GB#>3G)&>31:GB#>3D+G<&>.) D2E%.- D8 9+3.# D’@5A 9+3$%! 522"%8D%%522". 0..! 0.!.) :2&&>.- !<#>.7 #!&>.77 =2;?.2 !" #$%&’ (#$%&’(’)*+%)!,’&)%%)&’’&%-./0&)(%(1(*$"(&(*Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 153 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 154 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004COST ESTIMATES & PHASING Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 155 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 156 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00466 Cost Estimate & Phasing !"# $%&’())*(+,-!. /0%)(122(,&134 5 # 6"7$#!$$8 #%1(’’’(’’’5!%1(2&)(9)*!#5#"!$: / ! /%2(*-9(’*&!;# / #<%&(1&9(-)-$!;#%*9()-1()2’6="!." < !2’1-!2’1-!$! /"!>< /:0#$ 0# ?@" "!(@A"!:B"0 C/ /!8!.5 :"4D"$#"!<<0"!< 4B"0 SINGLE PHASE CONSTRUCTIONStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 157 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004 !"# $%&’())(*’!+ ,-%)(&&(.’/01 # 2"3$#!$$4 #%(555(555!%).)(6.7!##"!$8 , ! ,%&(5*6(9’7!:# , #;%&(.)9(*’$!:#%’)(79(967 8#"!;;"1<"$-"!; 1="- //>?" "!(?@"!8="- A, ,!4!+$! ,"!B; ,8-#$ -# &56!2CD"!+" ; !PHASE I gymnasium offi ce locker room lobby kids play area community gathering fi tness + track commons childcare center multipurpose room 67 Cost Estimate & PhasingStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 158 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004PHASE IIaquaticsaquatics support !"# !"$%&’())’*)# %++’),, "#"! $-. .%*&/’)00 1"."2%0+’0/0$# 1"%)’/++’(&3345!! ’56! -7!89.. : ;#-!<=!$(( >8! 2<7!8"! 22$ .! ?2.-8"$8"@A! ;!2 * Completing the project in 2 phases results in a total project cost increase of $1,289,975.00This cost increase is a result of escalation, remobilization and deconstruction costs.68 Cost Estimate & PhasingStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 159 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004 !" #$%$ &’()(*+,#-./$,#, !"#$%&!’()**!+ ,,!-./0(1!’23)!’ 4(’ 5(’5’-*$’6"3$’6,!’6’.0,1,#-./$,#,*)&2+)(3’&(453789:(*:(;:,1,#-./$,#$()3&&)5636&45*<-47,.$-8,.#$#-$.500 0 !"# $%% &’()&*+$,-.%+$+ !"#$% &% ’"% ()**$+ ,,$-./’(0$% 12)$% .2*%--*$% 3(% 4(% 4%-*!%52!%5,$%5%-/+ 0+$,-.%+$+’&(*12(3’3 )3*4256789(*9(:9+ 0+$,-.%+$% )*(663(&71 )214’34+-% ,8+-$%$,% .4’’&’;-69 Cost Estimate & PhasingStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 160 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004 !" #$%$ &’()&*+#,-.$+#+ !"#$% &% ’())$* ++$,-./’0$% 12($% -2)%,,)$% 3’% 4’% 4%,)!%52!%5+$%5%-/+0+#,-.$+#+’(1’2(33& ’4)51’6789’)9’:9+0+#,-.$+#$’)(66(3) ’65’);,57+-$,8+-#$#,$-4//&/ !" #$%$ &’()*)+#,-.$+#+ !"#$%&"% ’())$*++$,-.&’/$% 01($%2’% 3’% 3%,)!%41!%4+$%4%-/+0+#,-.$+#+’(’1(2)) 3&455678’)8’98+0+#,-.$+#$5()66(36 1)34)&:,47+-$,8+-#$#,$-3&&;&70 Cost Estimate & PhasingStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 161 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 162 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004APPENDIXStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 163 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 164 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00474 Civil Engineering Plans - Existing Conditions Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 165 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00475 Civil Engineering Plans - Site Demo Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 166 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00476 Civil Engineering Plan - Site PlanStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 167 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 168 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-004SITE WORK DESIGN NARRATIVE 12.1 Site Description A.The St. Louis Park Recreation Center is located at 3700 Monterey Drive. The project site isbounded by Monterrey Drive on the north and east, a storm water basin on the south andthe aquatic center and Wolfe Lake on the west.1.Parcel ID No. 06-028-24-34-00222.Parcel area is 31.65 acres12.2 Site Survey Information A.Sunde Land Surveying completed a boundary, topographic and utility survey of the St.Louis Park Recreation center property north of the storm water basin, dated August 8, 2014.12.3 Geotechnical Information A.American Engineering Testing, Inc. prepared a Report of Geotechnical Exploration andReview for the St. Louis Park Recreation Center Expansion, dated September 11, 2014. Thisreport contains information on site soils, groundwater, and recommendation regarding theproposed construction.1.The soils within the project area are generally characterized as variable thickness fillover mostly granular soils. Sand with silt, clayey sand, fine alluvial and organic swampdeposits occur at some locations under the fill material. The fill thickness varies from 1.5–16.5 feet.2.The fill, fine alluvial and swamp deposits are not suitable for support of foundations orfloor slabs. Ground improvement and/or deep foundation will be necessary for buildingand parking structure construction on the project site.B.Past geotechnical reports prepared for construction of Recreation Center facilities include:1.Soil Investigation – Proposed Pool and Ice Arena, prepared by Soil ExplorationCompany, dated July 23, 1970.2.Geotechnical report for swimming pool and parking lot expansion prepared by GMEConsultants, Inc., dated June 12, 1996.12.4 Environmental Conditions A.American Engineering Testing, Inc. prepared a Limited Phase II Environmental SiteAssessment for the St. Louis Park Recreation Center Expansion, dated September 18, 2014.This report contains information on past uses of the site and environmental conditions thatwill require special procedures during construction of the proposed project. Conclusions ofthis Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment include:1.The levels of organic and inorganic impacts in the undocumented fill soils render thematerials as regulated fill soil rather that unregulated fill soil for off-site reuse.2.Groundwater impacts by VOCs exceed regulatory criteria for drinking water inrecreational settings.3.A Soil Management Plan and Construction Contingency Plan are warranted tomanage anticipated contamination and risks.4.Further assessment to characterize the subsurface fill may be warranted and requiredby the MPCA for approval of a construction related Response Action Plan (RAP).B.Past environmental documents prepared for the Recreation Center site include:1.Wolfe Park Groundwater Investigation completed by STS Consultants, LTD., dated May23, 2003.2.Environmental Work Plan for St. Louis Park Recreation Center Expansion in St. Louis Park,STS Project 99629-XA, dated September 13, 1996.3.Exhibit B from STS Consultants Project 96629-XF4.Response Action Implementation report – Wolfe Park in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, STSProject 96629-XA, dated December 4, 2003.12.5 Water Resources Management A.The project site is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The site is largerthan 5 acres, the redevelopment will disturb less than 40% of the site, and less than oneacre of impervious surface will be added. Storm water discharges from the site are subjectto regulation by:1.Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) – NPDES/SDS Permita.An NPDES/SDS permit from the MPCA is required for construction activity thatdisturbs more than one acre of soil. This permit requires erosion and sedimentcontrol provisions during the construction period. If a project’s ultimatedevelopment adds one (1) or more acres of cumulative impervious surface, awater quality volume of one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfacescreated by the project must be retained on site and not discharged to surfacewater. The proposed building and site improvements will not add more than 1-acreof impervious surface, so post construction storm water management is notrequired by the MPCA.2.Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) – Permit Process & Storm WaterManagement Rulesa.Generally a permit is required for projects that create or disturb impervious surface.For redevelopment projects on sites larger than five acres that disturb less than 40%of the site and don’t increase impervious surface by more than 50% only theadditional impervious surface is subject to the storm water managementrequirements :1)Phosphorus Control - retain first 1” of runoff from impervious surfaces on-site2)Rate Control – match existing 1, 10 and 100 year peak discharge rates3)Volume Reduction – retain first 1” of runoff from impervious surfaces on-site3.City of St. Louis Park – Erosion Control Permit & City Code, Chapter 12, Article Va.A stormwater management plan is required for all redevelopments. Prior to startingany land disturbing activity an erosion control permit and approval of a stormwatermanagement plan must be obtained from the City.B.Wetlands78 Engineering NarrativesStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 169 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00479 Engineering Narratives1.The existing storm water basin along the south edge of the project site is part of astream course from Wolfe Lake to Lake Calhoun. It is indicated as wetland on theinteractive map on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District website. MCWD requiresestablishment of buffers around wetlands. The required minimum buffer width formanagement Class 1 is 16 feet. To determine the location of the required buffer awetland delineation report should be completed in accordance with the MinnesotaBoard of Water and Soil Resources guidelines. The wetland information given on thewebsite includes:a.Wetland ID: E-028-24-06-001b.Area: 1.51c.Community: Shallow, Open Water Communities, Shallow Marshd.Field Sensitivity: Moderatee.Wetland Management Class: Manage 1C.Flood Plain1.The existing storm water basin along the south edge of the project site is part of astream course from Wolfe Lake to Lake Calhoun. It is indicated as FEMA Flood Way onthe interactive map on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District website. MCWDregulates placement of fill within designated flood way or flood plain.2.The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Number27053C0362, Panel 362 of 479 indicates Zone X within the Recreation Center/WolfeLake Park parcel. East of Monterey Drive Zone AE is noted with an elevation of 879 feetreferenced to NGVD 1929. Zone X is Other Flood Areas identified as areas of 0.2%annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of lessthan 1 foot or with drainage area less than 1 square mile; and areas protected bylevees from 1% annual chance flood.12.6 Site Utilities A.Water Service: There is an existing 8” watermain that extends into the site from W. 36thStreet. This watermain should be extended south and east to connect to the existingwatermain in Monterey Drive, and provide a loop through the site north of the newbuilding that can be used for the new building water service connections.B.Sanitary Sewer: A new sanitary sewer service must be extended to the new building andparking structure lobby from the existing sanitary sewer in Monterey Drive.C.Storm Drainage: There are existing storm drainage pipes within the new building andparking structure areas. Each of these storm sewer pipes should be relocated except forthe existing 90-inch pipe that crosses the site. The foundations for the building and parkingstructure must be designed so that the 90-inch pipe is not disturbed and remains in place. End of Site Design LANDSCAPE DESIGN NARRATIVE 1. Primary Entry Drive (off of Monterey Drive)A. Area: Drive lanes, bus drop off to new facility, parking ramp entry/exit, andpedestrian entry.B. Surfacing: Bituminous surfacing with curb and gutter, pedestrian crossing withstandard pavers and compacted, drivable base, and pedestrian walk witharchitecturally finished concrete.2. Secondary Entry Drive (off of West 36th Street)A. Area: Drive lanes, bus drop off to existing facility, parking ramp entry, and pedestrianentry, Existing, mature trees adjacent to existing facility to remain.B. Surfacing: Bituminous surfacing with curb and gutter, pedestrian crossing withstandard pavers and compacted, drivable base, and pedestrian walk witharchitecturally finished concrete.3. Delivery Access DriveA. Surfacing: Bituminous surfacing with 18” wide aggregate maintenance strip on thesouth side.4. Property Buffer (along Monterey Drive)A. Area and Surfacing: Existing, mature trees, and pedestrian trail to remain.B. Planting, Soils, and Irrigation: Landscape materials include coniferous trees andornamental grasses. To meet city vegetation ordinances.5. Entry Plaza (Between the existing facility and new facility)A. Area: Approximately 7,500 sq. ft.; area to receive an influx of pedestrians, visitors,etc., for small group gathering, waiting, and circulation.B. Surfacing: Primarily hard surfacing, punctuated by planting/seating areas.Architecturally finished concrete and pervious pavers with free draining aggregatebase. Drain tile may be necessary.C. Planting, Soils, and Irrigation: Landscape materials include trees, shrubs, ornamentalgrasses, perennials, and ground cover.D. Furnishings: Bike racks, benches (prefabricated metal or wood), waste receptacles,and planters.E. Alternate: Potential for inclusion of a snowmelt system to reduce maintenanceoperations.6.Terrace (Between the community room and kids play room)A. Area: Approximately 4,200 sq. ft.; area for small group gathering and flexibleprogram use.B. Surfacing: Pervious pavers and compacted, crushed aggregate surfacing.C. Planting, Soils, and Irrigation: Landscape materials include trees, shrubs, ornamentalgrasses, perennials, and ground cover.D. Furnishings: Moveable furniture to allow for flexible use, benches, waste receptaclesand planters. An architectural site wall, at seat height, delineating the Terrace fromadjacent lawn area (cast-in-place concrete or concrete block with stone clad face).7.West Courtyard (Between the existing and new facilities, adjacent to the outdoor waterpark)A. Area: Approximately 7,298 sq. ft.; this includes a drive area for pool chemical drop-off and flexible gathering space/children’s outdoor play area.B. Surfacing: Architecturally finished concrete.C. Planting, Soils, and Irrigation: Landscape materials include trees, shrubs, ornamentalgrasses, perennials, and ground cover.D. Furnishings: Moveable furniture to allow for flexible use. A children’s play feature andassociated shade structure will be included.End of Landscape Design Narrative Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 170 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00480 Engineering NarrativesE. Provide a freeze protection circulation pump (inline pump ½ horsepower) per rooftop unitheating coil.F. As an alternate, provide a separate glycol heating water system, to serve the air handlingunit heating water coils. Provide a flat plate heat exchanger, a 30% propylene glycolsystem, and a pair of redundant pumps, each sized for 180 gpm, 80’ , 7.5 hp, with variablespeed drives for each. These will provide 100% redundancy. This system will be a 4” heatingwater supply and return, distributed from the second floor mechanical room to the rooftopair handling units. The heating water system will be sized for 180 gpm and will serve thereheat coils, cabinet unit heater, unit heaters, finned tube radiation, etc. As part of thisalternate, the freeze protection circulation pumps are eliminated.10.4 Chilled Water System A. Provide a 310 ton air cooled chiller, located on the roof above the 2nd floor mechanicalroom, similar to a Daikin Pathfinder Premium Efficiency with Variable Speed Drive.B.Chilled water system to be 50% propylene glycol.C.Provide a pair of chilled water pumps, located in the second floor mechanical room, forthe chilled water distribution system. 620 gpm each, 100’ hd, 30 hp with variable speeddrives. 100% redundant pumpsD. Distribute chilled water from the chiller to the air handling units through the second floorceiling space, via 6” chilled water supply and return pipinga. As an alternate, provide a 310 ton screw chiller, located in the second floormechanical room, with a remote condensing unit on the roof. Under this alternate,the boilers and chiller will need to be located in separate rooms. Under this alternate,the chilled water system will not be a glycol based system, but water. The cooling coilswill need to be drained every winter and refilled every spring. The pumping system willbe the same as the base system, except that the pumps are reduced to 25 hp each.10.5 Air Handling Systems A. Rooftop air handling units will provide ventilation, cooling, and heating to the spaces of theCommunity Center. There will be five air handling unita. AHU1- Gym- 24000 cfmb. AHU2- Fitness- 38000 cfmc. AHU-3- Childcare, Kids Play, Lobby, Community, - 24000 cfmd. AHU-4- Locker Rooms (100% exhaust air, 100% outside air, with energy recovery)e. AHU-5- Aquatics (Phase 3)- 27000 cfm- The aquatics air handling unit needs to beinvestigate to determin if it can be located inside the mechanical room on the secondfloor, in the pool mechanical roomB.AHUs 1,2, and 3 are 4” double wall, insulated air handling units, with supply fans, return fans,filters, heating coil, cooling coil, economizer dampers (outside air, return air, and relief airdampers), and controls, as manufactured by Haakon, Ingenia, or Temptrol. The units aremounted on a 36” tall prefabricated curb. The space between the roof and the curb willbe used as a return air path.MECHANICAL DESIGN NARRATIVE 10.1 General Conditions A. Permits and other associated fees required by the authority having jurisdiction and the Stateof Minnesota shall be secured and paid for by Contractor.B. Perform work within an industry-acknowledged standard of care, using only new qualitymaterials.C. All equipment quantities and capacities indicated in this Narrative are estimated based onlatest available program information and historical square foot values, and are subject tochange following final building program, floor plan layout, and subsequent building loadcalculations.D. Contractor shall guarantee the entire installation for a period of one year after acceptance.Repair or replacement of faulty equipment shall be done with no cost to the Owner.10.2 Codes and Standards A. All work shall be done in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal codes.B. The following codes, standards, and guidelines will be used for the design as applicable or asdirected by the authorities having jurisdiction:a. NFPA standards as referenced in the Minnesota Administrative Code.b. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).c. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA).d. Requirements of Insurance Carrier.C. The codes, standards and guidelines listed indicate recommended or minimumrequirements. Based on input from Owner representatives and recommendations from HGA,minimum requirements or standards may be exceeded.10.3 Hot Water Heating System A. Provide four high efficiency natural gas fired condensing hot water boilers, 1,200,000 btuheach. Based on Lochinvar Sync, with modulating burner and Sync Control of the four boilers,to stage boilers on in response to actual heating load. Maximum peak heating requirement(through phase 3) is approximately 3,600,000 btuh, 2,600,000 for phases 1 and 2. The fourboilers will provide N+1 redundancy , while allowing for only one boiler operation in summer.a. As an alternate price, provide 3 boilers for phase 1, with space for the fourth boiler inphase 2.B. Provide 2 heating water pumps (each capable of providing full heating water flow), eachsized for 360 gpm, 80’, 15 horsepower each. Provide each pump with a Variable SpeedDrive (VSD), for modulating flow of the heating water system based on system demand.Heating water temperature to be 140 degree supply, 120 degree return.C. New heating water piping will be routed from the second floor mechanical room to servethe VAV box reheat coils, finned tube radiation, cabinet unit heaters, and unit heaters, andto the rooftop units to serve the heating coils.D. Provide a 6 inch supply and return header in the mechanical room. Route 6” supply andreturn mains to the gym. Reduce pipe size to 4” after the takeoff to the phase 3 pool airhandling unit.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 171 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00481 Engineering NarrativesC. AHU 4 is an Xetex energy recovery unit (100% outside air, 100% exhaust air) with a rotary heatwheel and face and bypass dampers, , cooling coil, hot water reheat coil, filters, controls.This unit will supply cool, dry air to the locker rooms and exhaust the locker rooms through theenergy recover wheel.D. AHU 5 is the Pool Air Handling unit, based on Innovent. This system consists of supply andreturn fans, a flat plate heat exchanger used to recover energy from the pool exhaust airstream (approximately 25% minimum outside air), with cooling coil and heating coil in theheat exchanger supply air stream, plus face and bypass dampers to bypass the heatexchanger/cooling coil/ heating coil when outside air conditions permit the use of 100% to25% outside air.a. As an alternate, investigate the use of an Xetex energy recovery unit and 100% outsideair/100% exhaust air for the pool area.E. For all air handling units, both supply and return fan motors shall be controlled with variablespeed drive controllers.10.6 Humidification A. Investigate the need to provide humidification for the Community Center (based on comfortand wood finish requirements10.7 HVAC Piping Systems A. Hot water heating supply and return piping shall be the following:a. Schedule 40 steel with 125 lb. welded, flanged or threaded fittings.b.Type “L” copper with wrought copper soldered fittings and 95/5 solder.B. Chilled water supply and return piping shall be the following:a. Schedule 40 steel with 125 lb. welded, flanged or threaded fittings.b.Type “L” copper with wrought copper soldered fittings and 95/5 solder.C. Cooling coil condensate drain piping shall be the following:a.Type “L” copper with wrought copper soldered fittings and 95/5 solder.10.8 Hot Water Heating Terminal Units A. Cabinet unit heaters will be provided in all entry and exit vestibules.B. Unit heaters will be provided in each Trash/Recycling and Elevator Equipment Room.C. Reheat coils will be provided for each VAV box/zone.D. Finned tube radiation will be provide for areas with large expanses of glass.10.9 Air Distribution Duct Systems A. Supply, return and exhaust air will be transported though galvanized steel sheet metal ductsconstructed to SMACNA standards. Ductwork shall be rectangular, round or flat oval.B. Duct pressure ratings will be as follows:a.Supply air ductwork up stream of VAV boxes shall be constructed to 4” positivepressure class.b. Supply air ductwork down stream of VAV boxes shall be constructed to 2” positivepressure class.c.Supply air ductwork in constant volume systems shall be constructed to 2” positivepressure class.d.Return, relief and exhaust air ductwork shall be constructed to 2” positive or negativepressure class as required.C. Grilles, registers and diffusers will be steel, aluminum or extruded aluminum with finish asscheduled.D. VAV zones will be provided for every individual room, up to 1200 cfm per vav box. Thelarger areas (fitness, gym) will have multiple VAV boxes controlled by a single thermostat.Every VAV box serving an area with an exterior enclosure (roof or wall) will have a reheatcoil.10.10 Vibration Isolation A. Vibration isolators shall be provided for all fans and pumps.B. Vibration isolation hangers and connections will be provided on pipe and ductworkconnected to vibrating equipment.10.11 HVAC Controls and Instruments A. The Temperature Control system shall be a state of the art Direct Digital Control (DDC)system.B. The DDC system will be LonWorks or BACNet-based.C. The DDC system will have web-based access and include full systems color graphicsidentifying all respective control points.D. All ventilation, heating and cooling systems will be controlled by the DDC system.E. All systems equipment shall interface with DDC system to provide control and monitoring ofall available points provided by equipment manufacturers. Provide DDC interface whererequired to maintain compatibility.F. Supply, return and outdoor air intake for each air handling unit will be provided with air flowmeasuring stations for measurement and control of system air flow.10.12 Test and Balance A. Mechanical systems shall be tested and balanced by an independent testing andbalancing Contractor.B. Contractor shall retain a qualified independent firm to provide the services for testing andbalancing of the air and hydronic systems in this Project. The services will be provided by afirm specializing in testing and balancing of air and hydronic systems in building constructionand be certified by the Associated Air Balance Council (AABC) or National EnvironmentalBalancing Bureau (NEBB). Contractor shall provide drawings, shop drawings andspecifications to the balancing Contractor.10.13 Fire Protection A. GeneralStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 172 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00482 Engineering Narrativesd. Compact Stainless Steel Couplings: CISPI 310 with ASTM A 167, Type 301, or ASTM A666, Type 301, stainless steel corrugated shield, stainless steel bands, and sleeve.e. Copper DWV Tube: ASTM B 306, drainage tube, drawn temper.f. Copper Drainage Fittings: ASME B16.23, cast copper or ASME B16.29, wrought copper,solder-joint fittings.g. PVC Pipe and Fittings: ASTM D 2665, drain, waste and vent.F. Plumbing fixtures will be Commercial / Institutional Gradea. Water closets will be wall-hung with hand’s free flush valvesb. Wall-hung lavatories will be vitreous china with chrome plated brass trim, gooseneckspouts and either wristblade controls or automatic battery operated controls.10.15 Mechanical Systems Insulation A. Supply air ducts shall be insulated on the exterior with 1-1/2” flexible fiberglass wrap and FSKjacket.B. Return air ducts will not be insulated.C.Outside air intake and relief air ducts shall be insulated on the exterior with 2” rigid fiberglassboard and FSK jacket.D.Exhaust air ductwork shall be insulated on the exterior with 2” rigid fiberglass board and FSKjacket between outdoor connection and isolation damper. Remaining exhaust ductworkwill not be insulated.E. The use of internal duct liner is not permitted.F. Hot water heating supply and return piping will be insulated with pre-formed fiberglass pipeinsulation and white kraft paper jacket. Fittings will be jacketed with preformed PVC fittingcovers.G. Chilled water supply and return pping wil be insulated with closed cell elastomeric insulation(armaflex), 1”H. Cooling coil condensate drain piping will be insulated with pre-formed fiberglass pipeinsulation and white kraft paper jacket. Fittings will be jacketed with preformed PVC fittingcovers.I. Domestic cold water supply piping will be insulated with pre-formed fiberglass pipe insulationand white kraft paper jacket or closed cell elastometric insulation. Fittings will be jacketedwith preformed PVC fitting covers.J. Domestic hot water supply and re-circulated return piping will be insulated with pre-formedfiberglass pipe insulation and white kraft paper jacket. Fittings will be jacketed withpreformed PVC fitting covers.K. Horizontal storm water piping including vertical piping up to roof drains and 5 feet of verticalpipe down from elbows will be insulated with pre-formed fiberglass pipe insulation and whitekraft paper jacket or closed cell elastomeric. Fittings will be jacketed with preformed PVCfitting covers.End of Mechanical Narrative a. Contractor shall be responsible for complete design and installation of a fully functionalfire protection system. The fire protection system shall be designed by a qualified,licensed professional engineer experienced in the design of fire protection systems.b. Contractor shall be responsible for all applications, plan review and permits for theinstallation of the fire protection system.c. The following codes, standards, and guidelines will be used for design as applicable toor as directed by the authorities having jurisdiction:d. NFPA Chapters 13, and as referenced in the Minnesota Administrative Code.e. The codes, standards, and guidelines listed indicate recommended or minimumrequirements. Based on input from Owner representatives and recommendations fromHGA, minimum requirements or standards may be exceeded.B. Sprinklersa. The building is to be fully sprinkled in accordance with agencies listed above.b. Quick response sprinkler heads will be used throughout the building.C. Piping material shall be Dyna Flow or Dyna Steel.D. Piping material shall be Schedule 40 steel pipe.10.14 Plumbing A. Domestic Water Servicea.Provide a new 8” connection to the City water system. This will serve the sprinklersystem and the domestic water needs of the Community Center additions.b. Provide a room to contain the domestic water service, meter, backflow preventer forthe fire protection service, and backflow preventer for the irrigation system.c. Provide a header and risers for the fire protection zones- first floor, second floor, andpool.B. Domestic Water Heatinga. Provide two natural gas fired domestic hot water heater, each sized for 1,000,000 btuh.b. Provide a 500 gallon domestic hot water storage tank, for storage of domestic hotwater at 140 degreesc. Provide two three way thermostatic mixing valves, to distribute domestic hot water at115 degrees.C. Water Softeninga. Provide a water softening system sized for the domestic hot water requirements.D. Domestic Water Piping Materiala. Piping shall be hard copper tube; ASTM B 88, Type L water tube, drawn temper.b. Pipe fittings will be copper pressure fittings; ASME B16.18, cast copper-alloy or ASMEB16.22 wrought-copper, solder-joint fittings.E. Sanitary, Vent, Storm and Clearwater Waste Piping Materiala. Cast-iron Soil:b. Hubless Pipe and Fittings: ATM A 888 or CISPI 301.c. Couplings: ASTM C 1277 assembly of metal housing, corrosion-resistant fasteners, andASTM C 564 rubber sleeve with integral center pipe stop.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 173 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00483 Engineering Narrativesb. Kitchenc. Site/building exterior signage and lightingd. Alternative energy: Solar PV arrayse. Stand-alone Motor Starters: Provide a magnetic starter for all motors withoutintegral controls. Provide a combination starter when starters are mounted withinsight of the motor.E. Emergency Generatora. A new diesel 480 volt generator will be provided, supplying emergency power forthe facility. The emergency distribution will consist of panels and trade switches.b. Loads1. Life safety branch2. Standby branch11.3 Lighting Scope A. Interior Lighting: Lighting systems appropriate for the task and design of the space willbe selected. Lighting levels will meet or exceed IES recommended lighting levels.Lighting system selection will take into account the project’s sustainable design goals.B. Lighting installations will be designed to meet local energy code requirements. Designwill utilize energy efficient T8 fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts and LED sources.C. Indoor Lighting Specificsa. Interior spaces are described below, with luminaire types1. Offices – 2x4 recessed architectural troffers2. Gymnasium – LED or fluorescent high bays3. Conference rooms - 2x4 recessed architectural troffers4. Corridors – 2x2 recessed architectural troffers5. Toilets – LED downlights and wall sconces above mirrors6. Janitor closets, storage, and support spaces – Fluorescent striplights or lensedtroffers7. Childcare areas - 2x4 recessed architectural troffers8. Studios - 2x4 recessed architectural troffers9. Entrance Lobby / Commons – LED downlights, LED decorative pendants, LEDaccent lighting on both sides of 2 story fireplace feature wall10. Pool Area – Natatorium rated fluorescent or LED uplights11. Locker Rooms – Lensed troffers12.Kid’s Play Area – 2x4 recessed architectural troffers, surface mounted lights asrequired around climbing structure13. Exercise Floor – Fluorescent or LED linear pendants14. Indoor Track – Fluorescent or LED linear pendants15. Banquet Room – Dimmable LED downlights and decorative pendants or wallsconcesb.LED exit signs will be used throughout, polycarbonate housings throughout ‘back ofhouse’ areas, and brushed-aluminum housings throughout public areas.D. Exterior Lighting Specificsa. Security Lighting – Full cutoff wall packs or recessed downlights at eachentrance/exit.ELECTRICAL DESIGN NARRATIVE 11.1 Electrical Project Scope A. All electrical work associated with the Saint Louis Park Community Center Expansionand the site work associated with the building, unless listed below.B. Items currently not included in the scope of worka. Telephone System: All equipment, cabling, terminations and devices are notincluded as part of this project. Pathways and back boxes to support end usedevices (by others) are included.b. Data System: All equipment, cabling, terminations and devices are not included aspart of this project. Pathways and back boxes to support end use devices (byothers) are included.c. CATV System: All equipment, cabling, terminations and devices are not included aspart of this project. Pathways and back boxes to support end use devices (byothers) are included.d. Security/ Card Access Systems: All equipment, cabling, terminations and devicesare not included as part of this project. Pathways and back boxes to support enduse devices (by others) are included.e. A/V System: All equipment, cabling, terminations and devices are not included aspart of this project. Pathways and back boxes to support end use devices (byothers) are included.11.2 Service and Distribution Scope A. The Electrical Distribution System shall include:a. Electrical service, including source, metering, service location, etc. The utilityelectrical service presently runs east west on 36th street. It will be required for amanhole to be installed and service conductors routed south to expansion.b. 2000A Main service panel/switchboard location(s) and sizes, voltages, TVSS: to bedetermined.c. Branch panel locations and quantities, sizes, voltage, double neutral bussing, IGbussing, etc.: to be determined.d. Distribution transformer locations, quantities, sizes, k-ratings, etc.: to be determined.B. The following voltages are typicala. Motors ½ HP or greater: 480V, 3 phase.b. Lighting: 277VReceptacles and motors 1/3 HP or less: 120V.C. General convenience duplex receptacle locations and quantitiesa. Corridors: Receptacles every 40 feet throughout for housekeeping purposes.b.Storage, utility spaces: One receptacle at entrance door, 48” AFFc. Mechanical spaces: Receptacles spread throughout for maintenance purposesd. Outdoor: One receptacle at each entrance/exit from the building, with additionalperimeter outlets to reduce the spacing to 100’-0” maximum.D. Other power requirementsa. Door operators, projection screens, elevatorsStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 174 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00484 Engineering Narrativesb. Building / Accent Lighting – Façade accent lighting on parking garage elevationfacing West 36th Streetc.Parking Area/ Garage Lighting - Surface mounted garage lights and pole arealights on top leveld. Exterior Terrace – Tree uplights and either pedestrian scale pole lights or cantenarymounted pendantse. Entry Drives – Pedestrian scale pole lightsf. Entry Courtyard & West Plaza – Tree uplights and pedestrian scale pole lightsg. All exterior lighting will be LED unless noted otherwise.E. Emergency egress lighting will be supplied by a select group of general illuminationlights along the path of egress connected to the generator for life safety backuppower.a. Exterior: Building-mounted exterior lighting at entrances/exits from the building willbe circuited and controlled to serve as egress lights.F. Lighting Controls:a. Single-occupant offices, single-occupant toilet rooms, storage rooms, classrooms,meeting rooms, etc. and other enclosed rooms less than 1000 square feet will beprovided with occupancy sensors to automatically control lighting. See list belowfor occupancy sensor application.1.Janitor’s closets, small storage rooms, single-occupant toilet rooms: Wallboxinfrared2. Multi-occupant toilet rooms: Ceiling-mounted ultrasonic3. Large storage rooms: Ceiling-mounted infrared4. Individual office, conference rooms: Ceiling-mounted dual technologyb. Pool area, exercise floor, corridors, waiting areas, lobbies, other large orunenclosed public spaces, and all exterior lighting will be controlled bymicroprocessor-based lighting control panels consisting of line-voltage relayscontrolled through the microprocessor based on remote low-voltage switch station,photosensor, and astronomic timeclock input.c. Daylit zones in large public areas will have automatic daylighting controls.d. Local dual-level switching will be provided in work and office areas to allowoccupant selection of lighting level.11.4 Systems Scope A. Fire Alarm: An addressable fire alarm system will be provided throughout the building.System will include manual stations, smoke detectors, duct smoke detectors, heatdetectors, connection to sprinkler system, audio/visual devices and visual devices.System will be designed to meet NFPA and the State of Minnesota Building Code. Thefollowing items will be included:a. Connection to existing building system as required to provide annunciation of thetwo structures from a single location.b. Manual pull stations at each exit from each floor, double/single action.c. Elevators: Smoke and heat detectors needed to perform elevator recall and shunttrip functions.d. Other functions: Interface to accomplish control of HVAC units based on ductdetector input, monitoring of power used for life-safety functions (shunt trip power,etc.)e. Connection to tamper and flow switches in quantities and locations determined bythe fire protection contractor.f. An LCD remote annunciator will be provided at a location acceptable to the firedepartment for notification and control of the system.g. Audio/visual and visual notification appliances in quantities and locations requiredto notify occupants in accordance with NFPA 72 and the ADA. Strobes shall beminimum 75 cd rating under UL 1971.h. A DACT will be provided to transmit fire alarms to the owner’s central monitoringlocation.B. Telecommunicationsa. Voice/Data Systems: The voice/data systems will be provided and installed by theowner under a separate contract. Pathways and backboxes for cabling will becoordinated and provided under the electrical scope of work. Tb. Two (2) 4” empty conduits will be stubbed out from the building for incomingservice lines.c. Cable Tray1.3” inside depth, ladder-type, galvanized steel, NEMA 8C supported 8’ oncenter.2. Install in large corridors, terminate in telecommunications rooms.d. Outlet Quantities and Location Assumptions:1. Two (2) per office2. Four (4) per conference room3. One (1) per electrical/mechanical rooms4. Four (4) per room in community spacesC. Card Access security: The card access security system will be provided and installed bythe owner under a separate contract. Pathways and backboxes for cabling will becoordinated and provided under the electrical scope of work.D. Video Surveillance: The video surveillance system will be provided and installed by theowner under a separate contract. Pathways and backboxes for cabling will becoordinated and provided under the electrical scope of work.E. Public Address System: The public address system will be provided and installed by theowner under a separate contract. Pathways and backboxes for cabling will becoordinated and provided under the electrical scope of work.F. Audio/Visual: The A/V system will be provided and installed by the owner under aseparate contract. Pathways and backboxes for cabling will be coordinated andprovided under the electrical scope of work.G. TV Distribution: The TV distribution system will be provided and installed by the ownerunder a separate contract. Pathways and backboxes for cabling will be coordinatedand provided under the electrical scope of work.11.5 Basic Materials and Methods A. General:Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 175 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00485 Engineering Narratives2. IMC will be used for feeders running below the slab and exposed outdoors.3.EMT will be used for interior feeders and branch circuits.4. Flexible steel or Liquid-tight will be used for connection to motors andtransformersG. Wire and Cable: Branch circuit conductors shall be THWN/THHN solid copper through#12 and stranded copper #8 and larger. Minimum wire size is #12. Conduit fill shallconform to NEC Table 3. All conductors shall be in raceways with color codedinsulation and each voltage system shall be separately identified. A green groundconductor will be installed in each feeder and branch circuit conduit.1. Provide a separate neutral conductor for all 120/208-volt branch circuits.H. Boxes and Cabinetsa. Pull and Junction Boxes: Indoor boxes shall be NEMA 1, constructed of a singlepiece code gauge steel, with folded and welded corners, complete with flatremovable screw down cover. Outdoor boxes utilizing rigid metal conduit shall becast iron with cast iron gasketed cover held down with stainless steel screws.Outdoor boxes utilizing PVC conduit shall be plastic with screw down gasketedcover. Size all boxes per NEC article 370. Provide boxes to comply with code andto provide ease of conductor installation.b. Outlet Boxes and Fittings: Interior outlet boxes shall be galvanized steel,non-gangable, with knockouts and covers or extension rings as required. Exteriorsurface outlet boxes shall be cast iron alloy with threaded hubs and screw downgasketed WP covers.c. Cabinets: Cabinets shall be constructed of code gauge steel without factoryknockouts, surface or flush mounted and shall appear as a panel board with ahinged and latched door. Provide barriers to separate low voltage and powerwiring as required.I. Devices and Cover Platesa. Switches shall be heavy-duty specification grade, 20 amp, 120/277 volt, quiettoggle, momentary contact, pilot type or illuminated toggle. Provide single pole,double pole, 3-way, 4-way, or SPDT as required similar to Hubbell 1221 series.b. Receptacles shall be heavy-duty specification grade, duplex or single outlet,voltage, and NEMA configuration as required. Provide GFI receptacles as required.GFI receptacles shall have test and reset buttons and indicator lights.c. Interior device plate covers shall be:1. Unfinished areas (storage, mechanical, etc.): Galvanized steel2. Finished, public spaces: Stainless steel3. Exterior device plates shall be galvanized steel WP with hinged lid.J. Grounding and Bondinga. Provide grounding and bonding of the service entrance complete with groundingbushing on each conduit entering the service equipment. Connect serviceentrance gear to ground as listed below.b. Provide a service entrance ground by making a connection from the serviceentrance panel ground bus to the incoming water service and ground rods.a. Shop drawings, Operation and Maintenance Manuals, and Operating instructionsfor the Owner are required for this project.b. All materials shall be new, UL Listed and Approved for the purpose, and installedper code.c. Work shall be installed per the NEC (NFPA 70) and applicable state and local codesand shall meet the requirements of nationally recognized standards. Secure andpay for all permits, licenses, utility and inspection fees, and coordinate all work withlocal inspection authorities.d. All systems shall be completely functional and wiring systems shall test free ofdefects using megger, continuity, ground, voltage, current, and phase rotationtests. Balance system phase currents to within 5% of each other.e. Provide all cutting and patching necessary for installation of electrical work andrestore finished surfaces disturbed by this Contractor. Do not cut or drill structuralmembers.f. Provide general cleanup of waste and rubbish in the work area, and clean allremoved and reinstalled equipment and luminaires. Clean all equipment that hasbecome dirty during construction.B. Equipment Support: Provide support of all electrical work through the use of hangerrods, clamps, structural framing, fastening devices, and backboards. Provide vibrationisolation in all supporting hardware for vibrating electrical equipment installed by thisContractor. Provide 4" high concrete pads for floor mounted equipment.C. Identification: Provide engraved nameplates, wire and cable markers, embossed tape,and device plate cover engraving on electrical distribution and control equipmentand the loads they serve, main power and special system cabinets, motor controlcenters, motor starters and variable frequency drives, and disconnects.D. Temporary Electric Services: Provide complete, adequately sized, and meteredtemporary electric power and lighting services for all trades. The General Contractorwill pay energy charges. Provide service equipment, feeders, panel boards, panelboard receptacles, and lighting as required for the trades to perform quality work in asafe environment. Energize hoists, cranes, elevators, field offices, and other largesignificant loads. Work shall include ground fault protection where required andcomply with OSHA and the NEC. Remove facilities prior to occupancy.E. Underground Installations: Provide all excavation, backfilling, fill, and compacting oftrenches for installation of electrical work. Provide all necessary pumping and drains.Restore site surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, curbs, paved areas and lawns, tooriginal condition. Install marking tapes and pitch conduits away from the building fordraining.F. Raceway Systemsa. Conduits: Rigid steel, IMC, EMT, Flexible steel and Liquid-tight, and PVC conduits willbe used with approved fittings. Provide complete raceway systems including outletboxes, pull boxes, and fittings. Conceal conduits in finished spaces. Groupconduits on racks leaving 25% conduit space and suspend from the structure. Sizeconduits, boxes, and bends per the NEC. Provide expansion fittings, conduit seals,drain tees, conduit hubs, fire/smoke barriers where required. Metal conduits shallhave continuous grounding integrity.1. Rigid Conduit will be used for the service entrance conduits.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 176 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00486 Engineering Narrativesc.Provide a 2” x ¼” x 24” copper ground bar in the main electrical room. Ground barshall be used as the central grounding point for telecommunications and othersystems in the building.d. Equipment Grounding:1. Motor circuits shall have a ground conductor pulled with the phase conductors.2. Scrape light fixture finish to assure a good ground.e. Provide a green grounding conductor in all branch circuit and feeder conduitssized per NEC. Provide grounding conductors in all conduit systems, flexible conduitlengths, and surface raceways.f. Provide grounding of all equipment comprising a permanent bonding together ofall metallic, non-current carrying parts of the electrical system like raceways, boxes,panels, cabinets, equipment enclosures, housings, motor frames, ducts, andluminaires.11.6 Electrical Distribution Equipment A. Switchboardsa. Buses and Connections: Three-phase, four-wire type, copper bussing, uniformcapacity entire length of switchboard.b. Overcurrent Protective Devices: Ratings, characteristics and settings suitable foruse. Main and branch devices shall be electronic trip types with integral meteringfor customer’s use.c. Ratings: Nominal system voltage, continuous main bus amperage, short-circuit-current rating suitable for use.B. Transformers: Transformers shall be dry-type with kVA ratings as shown on the drawings.Primary shall be 480 volt, 3-phase, 3-wire, delta and secondary shall be 120/208 volt,3-phase, 4-wire wye. Transformer shall include four (4) primary voltage adjustmenttaps, class H insulation for 150 degree C rise above 40 degrees C ambient, and aventilated enclosure. Transformers shall be rated for non-linear loads and shall have k-ratings as shown on the plans.C.Panelboards: Panelboard enclosures shall be made of code gauge steel with finishedcabinet front with concealed trim clamps, concealed door hinges, and lockable trimdoor with flush locks all keyed alike. 120/208 volt circuit breakers shall be bolt-on,minimum 10,000 AIC rating, 277/480 volt circuit breakers shall be bolt-on, minimum14,000 AIC rating. Panel board bus ampacity shall be as indicated elsewhere in thisnarrative. Provide removable typewritten circuit breaker identification inside door.D. Disconnect switches shall be heavy duty, horsepower rated, 250 volt or 600 volt, 2-pole,solid neutral, or 3-pole fused or non-fused and as required. Switch shall be quick-makequick-break with interlock and lockable enclosure door for opening. Provide NEMA 1enclosure indoors, NEMA 3R outdoors, and NEMA 4X in interior wet locations. Fusibleswitches shall use current limiting fuses with rejection type fuse clips.a. Fuses 600 amp and above shall be equal to Bussman Low Peak, KRP-C. Fuses 600amp and below shall be equal to Bussman Low Peak, LPN-RK or LPS-RK except thatmotor circuit fuses shall be equal to Bussman Fusetron FRN-R.E. Circuit Breaker Disconnects: Provide molded case disconnect switches, 600 volt, 3-polein the elevator machine room. Provide one disconnect switch per elevator. Providecircuit breaker with shunt trip. Circuit breaker AIC rating shall coordinate with thecircuit.F. Motor Controlsa. Motor Control Center: NEMA 1 enclosure; NEMA ICS 3, Class I Type B wiring; platedcopper bussing; modular sections; free-standingb. Magnetic / Combination Starters: NEMA 1 enclosure with pilot light, HOA switch,control transformer with matching closing coil, 1-NO & 1-NC auxiliary contact andthermal overload protection sized to the motor. Fusible switches shall be quickmake, quick break with interlock to door. Starters shall be full voltage across theline sized as necessary.G. Packaged Engine Generatora. Engine: NFPA 37b. Cooling System: Closed-loop, liquid-cooled, radiator mounted on generator setbase.c. Fuel Tanks: Base tank, 240 gallonsd.Engine Exhaust System: Critical silencing muffler.e. Combustion Air-Intake System: Filter type air intake silencer, intake duct andconnections.f. Starting System: Electric with negative ground.g. Transfer Switches: Automatic, 4-pole11.7 Lighting Equipment A. Luminaires: Luminaires will be provided complete with lamps, ballasts, and all necessaryaccessories and mounting hardware. Luminaires will be compatible with ceiling or wallsystems.a.Lensed troffers: Flush aluminum doors, 0.156” min A19 prismatic acrylic lens,b. Downlights: Semi-specular clear Alzak reflector with low iridescent finish, self-trimmingB. Ballastsa. Fluorescent: Rapid-start electronic, low harmonic (10% THD or less at 120V, 15% THDor less at 277V)C. Lighting Control Panels: Microprocessor-based control system with electrically-heldrelays for control of lighting loads. Multiple panels shall be networked together withsignal cabling. Low-voltage momentary switches located throughout building asnecessary for control intent. System equal to PCI Switchkeeper.D. Occupancy Sensors:a. Wallbox passive infrared: Watt Stopper WS seriesb. Ceiling-mounted passive infrared: Watt Stopper CX / CI seriesc. Ceiling-mounted ultrasonic: Watt Stopper W-2000 seriesd. Ceiling-mounted dual-technology: Watt Stopper DT-200 seriesE. Dimmers: Complete with calibrated linear vertical slide control, separate push on-pushoff switch, square law dimming, concealed fins, and preset feature with high adjusttrim. Group dimmers so that finished installation appears ganged without breaking offany cooling fins. Dimmers shall be Lutron Nova Vareo or equivalent. For LED dimming,provide dimmers that are compatible with LED dimming drivers. End of Electrical Systems Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 177 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00487 Engineering NarrativesSTRUCTURAL DESIGN NARRATIVE 1. Design CriteriaA. Building Codes and StandardsB. Design criteria for the structural analysis and design will be based on thefollowing Codes and Standards:a. 2006 International Building Code with Minnesota amendments.b. ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concretec. AISC 360-05 Specification for Structural Steel Buildingsd. Steel Joist Institute – Standard Specifications for K, LH and DLH Joistse. Steel Joist Institute – Standard Specifications for Composite Steel Joists, CJ-SeriesC. Building Categorya. The Building Occupancy Category is III – primary occupancy is assembly.D.Design Floor Live Loadsa. Lobbies, corridors, stairs, public assembly: 100 PSFb. Office: 100 PSF (reducible) or 2000 lb concentrated load on an area of 2.5feet x 2.5 feet.c. Fitness areas and studios: 100 PSF (reducible) or 2000 lb concentratedload on an area of 2.5 feet x 2.5 feet.d. Rooftop terrace: 100 PSFe. Light storage, file rooms: 125 PSFf. Mechanical and electrical rooms: 125 PSF or actual equipment loadswhere greater.g. Snow Loadsa) Ground Snow Load = 50 PSFb) Snow Importance Factor = 1.1c) Snow Exposure Factor = 1.0d) Snow Thermal Factor = 1.0e) Building Flat Roof Snow Load = 39 PSFE. Wind Design Dataa. Basic wind speed (3 second gust) = 90 MPHb. Wind Importance Factor: 1.15c. Wind Exposure Category: Bd. Internal Pressure Coefficient: 0.18e. Mean Roof Height: 36 feet.F. Earthquake Design Dataa. Per Minnesota Building Code, seismic is not a design consideration.G. Vibration Criteriaa. Office floor areas will be designed to control vibration due to walkingexcitation based on the following criteria:a) Maximum vertical acceleration, ao/g = 0.5% of gravityb. Fitness areas (weightlifting, aerobics, cardio, studios) will be designed tocontrol vibration due to rhythmic excitation based on the following criteria:a) Maximum vertical acceleration, ao/g = 2.0% of gravity2. MaterialsA. Cast-in-place concrete:B.F’c=4000 psi at 28 days for all concrete, unless noted otherwiseC.F’c=5000 psi minimum at 28 days for precast concrete elementsD. Concrete masonry:a. Concrete masonry units: ASTM C90 type “N-1”b. Masonry grout: F’c=3000 psi at 28 daysc. Structural masonry: F’m=1500 psi using Type S mortarE. Steel reinforcing:a. Reinforcing bars: ASTM A615 (grade 60)b. Epoxy-Coated reinforcing bars: ASTM A775 or ASTM A934c. Reinforcing bars to be welded: ASTM A706 (grade 60)F. Structural steel:a. W shapes and Tees cut from W shapes: ASTM A992 (Fy=50 ksi)b. Plates and shapes other than W: ASTM A36 (Fy=36 ksi)c. Hollow structural sections (HSS): ASTM A500 Grade B (Fy=46 ksi)d. Pipes: ASTM A53, Types E or S, Grade B or ASTM A501e. Bolts: ASTM A325 and A490f. Anchor Rods: ASTM F15543. Foundation SystemsA. A geotechnical investigation is in progress by American Engineering Testing, Inc.but has not yet been completed. Additional foundation system details will bedetermined following completion of the geotechnical investigation.B. For preliminary purposes, building foundations are assumed to consist ofreinforced concrete spread footings.C. Typical slab on grade is assumed to be a 5-inch unreinforced concrete slabplaced directly over a 15-mil vapor barrier and supported by 6 inches ofcompacted under-floor base material.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 178 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00488 Engineering NarrativesE. Gymnasium Roof Framinga. The gymnasium roof will be designed to support a suspended running trackaround the perimeter of the gymnasium.b. The typical gymnasium roof framing will consist of long-span steel joists androof deck. Typical joist spacing will be approximately 6 feet, with 1 1/2”-20gage galvanized steel roof deck. Typical joists will be approximately 72inches deep, with spans of approximately 100 feet. Special joist designs willbe required to support the loads from the suspended running track andcontrol vibration.c. The floor of the running track around the gymnasium will consist of steelframing and concrete slabs on composite steel deck.F.Running Track Skyway “Bridge” Framinga.Two running track skyway “bridges” will be structured with pairs of weldedVierendeel trusses supporting the track floor and roof. The maximum trussspan is approximately 83 feet and the estimated steel weight is 300 poundsper linear foot for each truss.b. The floor of the running track supported by the trusses will consist of steelframing and concrete slabs on composite steel deck.c. The roof of the running track supported by the trusses will consist of steelframing and steel roof deck.5. Lateral SystemsA. Steel concentric braced frames utilizing HSS sections for bracing.End of Structural Design Narrative 4. Structural Framing SystemsA. Typical Floor Framing (Non-Fitness Spaces)a. The structural floor system for typical areas will consist of steel framing andconcrete slabs on composite steel deck. Typical slab construction will be 4-1/2” normal weight concrete on 3”-20 gage composite deck, providing atwo-hour floor slab rating. Typical purlin spacing will be 10 feet, with baysizes of approximately 30 feet by 30 feet.b. Columns will be wide flange shapes of 10- or 12-inch nominal depth. Thelargest columns will occur at braced frame locations.B. Typical Roof Framinga. Typical roof framing will consist of steel joists and roof deck. Steel beamframing with concrete slabs will be used below rooftop mechanicalequipment. Typical joist spacing will be 5 to 6 feet, with 1 1/2”-20 gagegalvanized steel roof deck. Typical bay sizes will be approximately 30 feetby 30 feet.C. Fitness Area Floor Framinga. The structural floor system for fitness areas (weightlifting, aerobics, cardio,studios, etc.) will consist of steel framing and concrete slabs on compositesteel deck, designed to control vibration due to rhythmic excitation. Typicalslab construction will be 4-1/2” normal weight concrete on 3”-20 gagecomposite deck, providing a two-hour floor slab rating. Typical purlinspacing will be 6 feet, with bay sizes of approximately 30 feet by 30 feet.b. The increased stiffness required to control rhythmic vibration will result instructural framing significantly heavier than typical elevated floor areas.Estimated weight of steel framing for fitness area floors is 24 PSF.c. Additional acoustic isolation of the floors and/or ceilings will likely berequired to control noise transmission to the spaces below.d. As an alternative to the enhanced floor framing to control vibration, aspring-isolated “jack-up” raised floor system may be considered.D. Aquatic Area Roof Framinga. The roof over the aquatic areas will be designed to accommodate anoccupied rooftop terrace, with pavers or an extensive green roof system.b. The typical roof framing over the aquatic areas will consist of long-spancomposite steel joists with concrete slabs on composite steel deck. Typicaljoist spacing will be approximately 6 feet, with joist depths of approximately48 inches. Joist spans will be up to 70 feet.c. Steel trusses spanning up to 70 feet will be required to frame around thelarge openings in the main roof over the aquatic areas. Truss depths willrange from approximately 6 to 8 feet, depending on spans and loadingconditions.Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 179 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00489 Code Summary ! " " #$% " " #$ " "&#%$&#!! ’( !" " #$!&" " " " " "$ )##*" *)" "+%, ! %, ! ,,,,,#,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-%#!*.!*&/*!!-"&&&&&$#&! % --&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&$!"0&&&&&,1!++! #*&$!".#!&&&&&" !!#!"" #!"11##"&&&&&&&&-##)&%%$#!!1 %#!%#!"" !"!! !#$%!&!&’%$## !%$# !%$ !%$!%$ # !%$# !% $ ( !%$!% $%!% $!%$( !)!’$ $ $$*+,!*!, -$*,!!*$!$, $*.,/+01023%4!%4"!-"&%4" !"&$""%!!&)%-!!!- #%4%5"%4-%4%4)%4)-6"!’Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 180 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTERSchematic Design - November 26, 20141575-00490 Code Summary !" ###$%$# ! &&! #$#%$ ! ##&&#%$ ! ##$$%& ! &#$% ! #$ ! $’ "$!!!!####!(#$$!( #$&!) #$!(#$&######$##$####&&$$$#$###########*#(*(**#$# !"#$%# &’!""$#&%(((+,!* -!&&%’"((’%#$# (*("")#*& ’$+"#,*(*%’##%’%"&"##$( !" ! !!!#$! ##$ ! %%#!"&$# !$’%’#!!Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 181 PARKING DECK (70 STALLS)OUTDOOR REC COURTS DROP-OFF (20 STALLS) (110 STALLS) TOTAL PARKING 950 STALLS (300 EXISTING COUNT DEDICATED TO REC CENTER + 650 FOR NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM) 250 STALLS X 3) 710 8 63 4 5 1 9 PHASE I 1 GYM 2 LOCKERS 7 KIDS PLAY 9 FITNESS + TRACK 10 CHILDCARE PHASE II 3 AQUATICS 4 AQUATIC SUPPORT 5 MULTI-PURPOSE PHASE III 6 COMMUNITY ROOM 8 OFFICE CLIMBING WALL3'-6" DEEP5'-0" DEEP10'-0" DEEP3630 30 30 OPENIIIIII PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS PHASE II COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM SUPPORT PHASE III AQUATICS AQUATICS SUPPORT MULTI-PURPOSE RROOFII II II PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS PHASE II COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM SUPPORT CONSESSIONS300 SF22 22 22 22 293 OPEN OPEN I I I PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS OPEN OPEN OPEN ROOFe128120a137HEADERTRENCH125TEAMROOM124TEAMROOM123MULTI-PURPOSEROOM122SKATECHANGINGFF 173'-2"128ZAMBONI ROOM129NEW ZAMBONI ROOM130MECHe127e126e125e124e123119ae117e116e118e102e101e104e105e107e106e103e114e113e112e111e110e108e109e115e122102a101a139RAISED SEATING117ELEVATORHALL119b120b138NEW ARENAFF 173'-2"133MECHEQUIPT173'-2"ARENA FLOOR175'-6"FIRST FLOOR170'-2"STORAGE FLOOR118ELEV131EXIT135GAS STORAGEEL 176'-2"114MEN'S TOILET109WOMEN'S TOILET112MEN'S LOCKERS111WOMEN'S LOCKERS110WOMEN'S SHOWER113MEN'S SHOWER116CONCESSIONS107FAMILYTOILET108MECH104SKATESHARPENING103OFFICE102TICKETING121CORRIDORFF 175'-6"101ENTRY110AWOMEN'S ALCOVE120BATH HOUSEENTRY132REFUSESTORAGE126TEAMROOM127TEAMROOM115STOR136REFEREE'SROOM106FAMILYTOILET105CONFERENCEROOM121.1HALL113AMEN'S ALCOVE134RAMPPASSSAGE175'-6"RAISED SEATING173'-2"ARENA FLOOR173'-2"ARENA FLOOR175'-6"RAISED SEATING119POOL MECHUPUPEL 178'-0"MECH EQUIPMENT FLOOR111 1 1 1 11111111 11111 1 11 11 11111 11 11 22222211111101F101E103 105 104A104B 106107 108110113114B112109A114A 109B122D122C122B122A115116111118A117B117C117A119A119B119C119D 124125126127128B136A130A136.1135131A131B139B121175'-6"FINISH FLOOR123103.1118AELEV MECH139A131D131C101A101C101D101BEXITING 178'-6"124.1SHOWER124.2DRYING124.3TOILET125.1SHOWER125.2DRYING125.3TOILET126.1SHOWER126.2DRYING126.3TOILET127.1SHOWER127.2DRYING127.3TOILET128A129130B130C134EL 176'-2"TOP OF RAMP123.1STORAGEe128EXISTING ARENAFF 173'-2"103.1STORAGE119.1STORAGE119.2CHEMICAL STORAGE11136.1TOILET121CORRIDORFF 175'-6"117EOPTION TO DEMO/RECONSTRUCT EXISTING OFFICES/LOCKER ROOMS VS. RETAIN/REMODEL EXISTING TO BE EVALUATED DURING DESIGN PHASE. COST ESTIMATES BASED ON DEMO/RECONSTRUCTION SCENARIO. * * SURFACE PARKING REMAINS IN USE PARK VIEW SITE PHASING EXISTING ARENA UPPER LEVEL EXISTING AQUATICS BELTLINESEE INSET FOR UPPER LEVEL PLAN POSSIBLE FUTURE OUTDOOR ICE RINK Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 182 PARKING DECK (70 STALLS)OUTDOOR REC COURTS DROP-OFF (20 STALLS) (110 STALLS) TOTAL PARKING 950 STALLS (300 EXISTING COUNT DEDICATED TO REC CENTER + 650 FOR NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM) 250 STALLS X 3) 710 8 63 4 5 1 9 PHASE I 1 GYM 2 LOCKERS 7 KIDS PLAY 9 FITNESS + TRACK 10 CHILDCARE PHASE II 3 AQUATICS 4 AQUATIC SUPPORT 5 MULTI-PURPOSE PHASE III 6 COMMUNITY ROOM 8 OFFICE CLIMBING WALL3'-6" DEEP5'-0" DEEP10'-0" DEEP3630 30 30 OPENIIIIII PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS PHASE II COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM SUPPORT PHASE III AQUATICS AQUATICS SUPPORT MULTI-PURPOSE RROOFII II II PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS PHASE II COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM SUPPORT CONSESSIONS300 SF22 22 22 22 293 OPEN OPEN I I I PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS OPEN OPEN OPEN ROOFe128120a137HEADERTRENCH125TEAMROOM124TEAMROOM123MULTI-PURPOSEROOM122SKATECHANGINGFF 173'-2"128ZAMBONI ROOM129NEW ZAMBONI ROOM130MECHe127e126e125e124e123119ae117e116e118e102e101e104e105e107e106e103e114e113e112e111e110e108e109e115e122102a101a139RAISED SEATING117ELEVATORHALL119b120b138NEW ARENAFF 173'-2"133MECHEQUIPT173'-2"ARENA FLOOR175'-6"FIRST FLOOR170'-2"STORAGE FLOOR118ELEV131EXIT135GAS STORAGEEL 176'-2"114MEN'S TOILET109WOMEN'S TOILET112MEN'S LOCKERS111WOMEN'S LOCKERS110WOMEN'S SHOWER113MEN'S SHOWER116CONCESSIONS107FAMILYTOILET108MECH104SKATESHARPENING103OFFICE102TICKETING121CORRIDORFF 175'-6"101ENTRY110AWOMEN'S ALCOVE120BATH HOUSEENTRY132REFUSESTORAGE126TEAMROOM127TEAMROOM115STOR136REFEREE'SROOM106FAMILYTOILET105CONFERENCEROOM121.1HALL113AMEN'S ALCOVE134RAMPPASSSAGE175'-6"RAISED SEATING173'-2"ARENA FLOOR173'-2"ARENA FLOOR175'-6"RAISED SEATING119POOL MECHUPUPEL 178'-0"MECH EQUIPMENT FLOOR111 1 1 1 11111111 11111 1 11 11 11111 11 11 22222211111101F101E103 105 104A104B 106107 108110113114B112109A114A 109B122D122C122B122A115116111118A117B117C117A119A119B119C119D 124125126127128B136A130A136.1135131A131B139B121175'-6"FINISH FLOOR123103.1118AELEV MECH139A131D131C101A101C101D101BEXITING 178'-6"124.1SHOWER124.2DRYING124.3TOILET125.1SHOWER125.2DRYING125.3TOILET126.1SHOWER126.2DRYING126.3TOILET127.1SHOWER127.2DRYING127.3TOILET128A129130B130C134EL 176'-2"TOP OF RAMP123.1STORAGEe128EXISTING ARENAFF 173'-2"103.1STORAGE119.1STORAGE119.2CHEMICAL STORAGE11136.1TOILET121CORRIDORFF 175'-6"117EOPTION TO DEMO/RECONSTRUCT EXISTING OFFICES/LOCKER ROOMS VS. RETAIN/REMODEL EXISTING TO BE EVALUATED DURING DESIGN PHASE. COST ESTIMATES BASED ON DEMO/RECONSTRUCTION SCENARIO. * * SURFACE PARKING REMAINS IN USE PARK VIEW SITE PHASING EXISTING ARENA UPPER LEVEL EXISTING AQUATICS BELTLINESEE INSET FOR UPPER LEVEL PLAN POSSIBLE FUTURE OUTDOOR ICE RINK Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 183 PARKING DECK (70 STALLS)OUTDOOR REC COURTS DROP-OFF (20 STALLS) (110 STALLS) TOTAL PARKING 950 STALLS (300 EXISTING COUNT DEDICATED TO REC CENTER + 650 FOR NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM) 250 STALLS X 3) 710 8 63 4 5 1 9 PHASE I 1 GYM 2 LOCKERS 7 KIDS PLAY 9 FITNESS + TRACK 10 CHILDCARE PHASE II 3 AQUATICS 4 AQUATIC SUPPORT 5 MULTI-PURPOSE PHASE III 6 COMMUNITY ROOM 8 OFFICE CLIMBING WALL3'-6" DEEP5'-0" DEEP10'-0" DEEP3630 30 30 OPENIIIIII PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS PHASE II COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM SUPPORT PHASE III AQUATICS AQUATICS SUPPORT MULTI-PURPOSE RROOFII II II PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS PHASE II COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM SUPPORT CONSESSIONS300 SF22 22 22 22 293 OPEN OPEN I I I PHASE I GYM LOCKERS KIDS PLAY FITNESS+TRACK CHILDCARE OFFICE LOBBY COMMUNITY GATHERING/COMMONS OPEN OPEN OPEN ROOFe128120a137HEADERTRENCH125TEAMROOM124TEAMROOM123MULTI-PURPOSEROOM122SKATECHANGINGFF 173'-2"128ZAMBONI ROOM129NEW ZAMBONI ROOM130MECHe127e126e125e124e123119ae117e116e118e102e101e104e105e107e106e103e114e113e112e111e110e108e109e115e122102a101a139RAISED SEATING117ELEVATORHALL119b120b138NEW ARENAFF 173'-2"133MECHEQUIPT173'-2"ARENA FLOOR175'-6"FIRST FLOOR170'-2"STORAGE FLOOR118ELEV131EXIT135GAS STORAGEEL 176'-2"114MEN'S TOILET109WOMEN'S TOILET112MEN'S LOCKERS111WOMEN'S LOCKERS110WOMEN'S SHOWER113MEN'S SHOWER116CONCESSIONS107FAMILYTOILET108MECH104SKATESHARPENING103OFFICE102TICKETING121CORRIDORFF 175'-6"101ENTRY110AWOMEN'S ALCOVE120BATH HOUSEENTRY132REFUSESTORAGE126TEAMROOM127TEAMROOM115STOR136REFEREE'SROOM106FAMILYTOILET105CONFERENCEROOM121.1HALL113AMEN'S ALCOVE134RAMPPASSSAGE175'-6"RAISED SEATING173'-2"ARENA FLOOR173'-2"ARENA FLOOR175'-6"RAISED SEATING119POOL MECHUPUPEL 178'-0"MECH EQUIPMENT FLOOR111 1 1 1 11111111 11111 1 11 11 11111 11 11 22222211111101F101E103 105 104A104B 106107 108110113114B112109A114A 109B122D122C122B122A115116111118A117B117C117A119A119B119C119D 124125126127128B136A130A136.1135131A131B139B121175'-6"FINISH FLOOR123103.1118AELEV MECH139A131D131C101A101C101D101BEXITING 178'-6"124.1SHOWER124.2DRYING124.3TOILET125.1SHOWER125.2DRYING125.3TOILET126.1SHOWER126.2DRYING126.3TOILET127.1SHOWER127.2DRYING127.3TOILET128A129130B130C134EL 176'-2"TOP OF RAMP123.1STORAGEe128EXISTING ARENAFF 173'-2"103.1STORAGE119.1STORAGE119.2CHEMICAL STORAGE11136.1TOILET121CORRIDORFF 175'-6"117EOPTION TO DEMO/RECONSTRUCT EXISTING OFFICES/LOCKER ROOMS VS. RETAIN/REMODEL EXISTING TO BE EVALUATED DURING DESIGN PHASE. COST ESTIMATES BASED ON DEMO/RECONSTRUCTION SCENARIO. * * SURFACE PARKING REMAINS IN USE PARK VIEW SITE PHASING EXISTING ARENA UPPER LEVEL EXISTING AQUATICS BELTLINESEE INSET FOR UPPER LEVEL PLAN POSSIBLE FUTURE OUTDOOR ICE RINK Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 184 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER city council study session october 27, 2014 1575-004 10 Cost Estimate and Phasing ESTIMATE SUMMARY - COMMUNITY CENTER FULL SCOPE ESTIMATE DATE: PROJECT: ARCHITECT: DRAWING DATE: Base DESCRIPTION Estimate Construction Estimate Total $30,994,856 Parking Ramp $9,122,531 Façade Enhancement / Public Art Allowance $1,000,000 Other Costs $1,239,794 Architectural & Engineering Costs $2,467,043 Project Contingency $3,137,696 Total Project Estimate $47,961,920 October 10, 2014 SAC / WAC St. Louis Park Community Center - SD Estimate HGA Architects August 12, 2014 NOTES 2016 Start Date 2016 Start Date Soil Borings Site Survey Testing & Special Inspections FFE ( funiture, fixtures & equipment ) Signage Artwork Phone & Data Audio Visual Security Systems Computer Systems and Equipment SINGLE PHASE CONSTRUCTION Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 185 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER city council study session october 27, 2014 1575-004 11 Cost Estimate and Phasing ESTIMATE SUMMARY - PHASE 1 ESTIMATE DATE: PROJECT: ARCHITECT: DRAWING DATE: Base DESCRIPTION Estimate Phase 1 Construction Estimate Total $23,991,413 Parking Ramp $9,122,531 Façade Enhancement / Public Art Allowance $1,000,000 Other Costs $959,657 Architectural & Engineering Costs $2,046,837 Project Contingency $2,598,431 Total Phase 1 Project Estimate $39,718,867 Phone & Data Security Systems Audio Visual Computer Systems and Equipment FFE ( funiture, fixtures & equipment ) Signage Artwork Soil Borings Site Survey Testing & Special Inspections NOTES 2016 Start Date SAC / WAC St. Louis Park Community Center - SD Estimate HGA Architects August 12, 2014 October 10, 2014 PHASE I gymnasium office locker room lobby kids play area community gathering fitness + track commons childcare center multipurpose room Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 186 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER city council study session october 27, 2014 1575-004 12 Cost Estimate and Phasing PHASE II aquatics aquatics support ESTIMATE SUMMARY - PHASE 2 ESTIMATE DATE: PROJECT: ARCHITECT: DRAWING DATE: Base DESCRIPTION Estimate Construction Costs Phase 2 Construction Estimate Total $8,099,429 Other Costs $323,977 Architectural & Engineering Costs $485,966 Project Contingency $623,656 Total Phase 2 Project Estimate $9,533,028 FFE ( funiture, fixtures & equipment ) Signage Artwork Phone & Data Audio Visual NOTES 2020 Start Date SAC / WAC Computer Systems and Equipment Security Systems Soil Borings Site Survey Testing & Special Inspections St. Louis Park Community Center - SD Estimate HGA Architects August 12, 2014 October 10, 2014 * Completing the project in 2 phases results in a total project cost increase of $1,289,975.00 This cost increase is a result of escalation, remobilization and deconstruction costs. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 2) Title: Community center project Page 187 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Recommended action: Review the proposed ordinance and discuss planning commission’s recommendation of denial with planning commissioners. Policy consideration: Does city council wish to bring the proposed ordinance forward for a first reading? Summary: After several months of reviewing ground floor transparency requirements, the planning commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the ground floor transparency ordinance draft. The vote was based on concerns about lack of flexibility both externally and internally for retail and commercial spaces, and placing undue burden on businesses. The city has used similar standards to increase the amount of ground floor transparency in planned unit developments since the 2001 to increase the interaction between the internal spaces of a building and the public realm. During discussions, planning commission members raised concerns about requiring prescriptive amounts of transparency along ground floor street facing facades, as well as restricting the first three feet of space within the building. They were also hesitant to strictly limit the sign area in windows, and were not comfortable that the flexibility afforded in the ordinance could be administered both consistently and as broadly as businesses may need. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Draft ordinance Planning commission public hearing minutes from January 16, 2019 Planning commission study session minutes from October 17, 2018 City council study session minutes Examples of transparency requirements from St. Louis Park and other cities Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Discussion Background: In summer 2018, city council directed staff and the planning commission to consider zoning standards for ground floor window transparency to increase vibrancy along the city’s commercial streets. The planning commission and city council have since discussed the importance of ground floor transparency requirements and have provided feedback on a draft ordinance during several study sessions. The city has regulated the amount of ground floor transparency in planned unit developments to increase the interaction between the internal spaces of a building with the public realm. In the past, there has been very little pushback with developers on these requirements; however, commercial, and especially retail tenants, have tried to reduce the amount of required window transparency. Ground floor transparency regulations are particularly important in areas where there is high pedestrian traffic as transparency can help create a vibrant and safer street by allowing people inside buildings to easily observe street life. Ground floor windows and transparent doors may also strengthen the commercial viability of a use by attracting customers and adding to the enjoyment of the pedestrian’s experience on the street. The attached draft ordinance responds to feedback from the planning commission and city council. The intent of the ordinance is to provide flexibility, especially for small businesses and existing buildings, yet advance the city’s goals for a safe and active pedestrian realm and vibrant streets. The limitations on window paintings and signage that are included in the ordinance would be applied to all businesses, existing and new, in the C-1 and C-2 Districts; and retail, service, and restaurant uses in the O and BP Districts. The remainder of the ordinance will be applied when upgrades and renovations to buildings occur. The regulation establishing a minimum percentage of transparency on the front and side street facing facades would not apply to existing buildings. This requirement will be enforced on all new buildings and buildings which expand the gross floor area of the building by more than 50 percent. Public hearing: There were no comments received during the public hearing. Planning Commission: The planning commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the ordinance. Planning commission members were concerned about requiring prescriptive amounts of transparency along ground floor, street facing facades, as well as restricting the first three feet of space within the building. They were also hesitant to strictly limit the sign area in windows, and they were not convinced the flexibility afforded in the ordinance could be administered both consistently (fairly) and as broadly as businesses may need. Present considerations: Staff acknowledges and understands the planning commission’s concerns related to the proposed transparency requirements. And, given that the proposed transparency requirements are based on industry standards found across the country, and past experiences with St. Louis Park developers, staff supports the policies included in the draft ordinance and recommends adoption. Next steps: Staff will schedule the first reading of an Ordinance in May unless the city council directs staff otherwise. Page 3 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Draft Ordinance Section 36-4 Definitions ************ Ground Floor Transparency means the measurement of the percentage of a facade that has highly transparent, low reflectance windows at the pedestrian level, measured between 2’ and 8’ above grade. ************ 36-366 Architectural design ** (b)Standards. ** (3)Ground floor transparency. a.The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades in the C-1 and C-2 Districts, and retail, service, and restaurant uses in O and BP Districts: i.Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window and door area. ii.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three (3) feet. Display of merchandise is allowed within this three (3) feet. iii.Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. iv.No more than 10 percent of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90 percent of window and door area shall be highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum 60 percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. v.For all new buildings constructed after January 1, 2019, and existing buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building by more than 50 percent, the minimum ground floor transparency shall be 65 percent on the front façade, and 20 percent on all other ground floor street facing facades. vi.The city acknowledges a degree of flexibility may be necessary to adjust to unique situations. Alternatives that provide an increase in pedestrian vibrancy and street safety including but not limited to public art and Page 4 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements pedestrian scale amenities may be considered and may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless the development application requires approval by City Council, in which case the City Council shall approve the alternate transparency plan. (3)(4) Additions and accessory structures. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, exterior alterations, and new accessory buildings shall address and respect the original architectural design and general appearance of the principal buildings on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section. (4)(5) Screening. a.The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods. Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible within 400 feet from property in an R district, only the items listed in subsections 1 and 2 shall be used. 1.A parapet wall. 2.A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building. 3.The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is most effective. b.Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening. c.All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter. (5)(6) Parking ramps. All new parking ramps shall meet the following design standards: a.Parking ramp facades that are visible from off the site shall display an integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors with the principal building. b.No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades. c.If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right-of-way or recreational trail, the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings. Page 5 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements (6)(7) Awnings and canopies. a.Awnings and Canopies. 1.Construction. Awnings and canopies shall have noncombustible frames. If an awning can be collapsed, retracted or folded, the design shall be such that the awning does not block any required exit. 2. Projection. Awnings and canopies less than 25 feet in width may extend up to two feet from the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally. 3.Clearance. All portions of any awning and canopy shall provide at least eight feet of clearance or any walkway and twelve feet of clearance over nay driveway or roadway. 4.Supports. Canopy posts or other supports located within a public right-of- way or easement shall be placed in a location approved by the city engineer. b.Permit required. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any awning or canopy. In addition to the building permit, an encroachment agreement shall be issued by the city engineer prior to the installation of any awning or canopy that extends into, upon or over any street or alley right-of- way, park or other public property. The encroachment agreement shall include provisions that hold the owner of the awning or canopy liable to the city for any damage which may result to any person or property by reason of such encroachment or the removal of such encroachment. Additional conditions may be imposed on encroachment permits to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to protect nearby property owners from hardship or damage or to protect other public interests as determined by the city engineer. c.Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to the installation of an awning or canopy. 1.Application form and fee. A separate fee shall be required for the building permit and encroachment agreement. 2.Dimensioned and scaled site plan and building elevations. 3.Four sets of drawings for each awning or canopy proposed. d.Projections to be safe. All such projections over public property shall be structurally safe, shall be kept in a safe condition and state of repair consistent with the design thereof and repaired when necessary in the opinion of the city engineer or building official by and at the expense of the person having ownership or control of the building from which they project. Page 6 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements e.Removal upon order. The owner of an awning or canopy, any part of which projects into, upon, over or under any public property shall upon being ordered to do so by the city engineer remove at once any part or all of such encroachment and shall restore the right-of-way to a safe condition. Such removal and restoration of the right-of-way will be at the sole expense of the property owner. The city may, upon failure of the property owner to remove the encroachment as ordered, remove the encroachment, and the reasonable costs of removing such encroachment incurred by the city shall be billed and levied against the property as a special assessment. Page 7 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Planning commission study session minutes July 11, 2018 3.Window Transparency Ordinance Ms. Monson introduced the topic. She said the Council discussed window transparency at its July 16 study session and wants to look further at regulations for transparency requirements; particularly for high pedestrian areas and ground floor retail. She said staff is asking for the commission’s guidance on how to craft and apply the proposed regulations. The Chair commented that it’s hard to provide flexibility. What can you do to meet the intent but still meet your needs. Commissioner Kraft asked about levels of transparency, and reasons why it might not be 100% transparent. Ms. Monson spoke about the amount of depth between the pedestrian level and the use. The Chair spoke about the difficulty of providing transparency and privacy. Ms. Monson provided transparency requirement examples at Excelsior & Grand, Shops at West End, Elmwood, PLACE and Bridgewater. The Chair stated that visual in/visual out is an important element. Commissioner Kraft asked how violations are handled. Staff responded that similar to signage, there is enforcement. Commissioner Carper said he’d like to see something that shows what exists today to see all the variation; for example on Excelsior Blvd. He spoke about businesses also needing to function and losing important sales space to transparency requirements. Commissioner Kraft spoke about Byerly’s downtown which is very active, very glassy and has lots of display. The Chair asked if we are looking at particular uses or particular streets. Mr. Walther responded we are still considering applying the rules based upon both the uses on the first floor and the adjacency to the streets. Ms. Monson remarked that uses can change. If requirements are based on street location the transparency might not be workable everywhere but there may be other alternative elements that could be added to make it more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Monson said staff will come up with examples for review. Page 8 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements October 17, 2018 3.Transparency Requirements Ms. Monson discussed Council’s desire to look at transparency requirements for commercial buildings in general and as part of the MX district. She spoke about proposed requirements which would require ground floor window transparency for all street facing facades at the front of the building. This would include C1 and C2 districts as well as retail service and restaurants in the Office and BP districts. There was a lengthy discussion about wrap around transparency for secondary streets. There was discussion about active permitted uses being maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet as being too onerous for businesses. January 16, 2019 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 16, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, Alanna Franklin (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2018 Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion to approve the December 19, 2018 minutes. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 3.Public Hearings A.Zoning Ordinance – window transparency on ground floor street facing facades Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 18-70-ZA Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. Page 9 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Commissioner Peilen asked about businesses on Minnetonka that cover their windows with brown paper and asked if the proposed ordinance would require the business to remove the paper. Ms. Monson said that the proposed ordinance would require the removal of paper coverings. Commissioner Peilen asked about a separate part of the ordinance dealing with directional signage on parking ramps. Discussion followed. Mr. Walther said that directional signage on parking ramps would be allowed under the sign code, and is not prohibited by the architectural ordinance. He suggested the planning commission review this item at a later time as it is not part of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Carper agreed. Commissioner Kraft asked about signage for unleased space. Mr. Walther said the city limits the square footage for leasing signs under the sign code. Ms. Monson said she agreed with Mr. Walther and said the proposed ordinance is for occupied spaces. Leasing signs would still have to meet the sign code. Commissioner Carper asked a question relating to the window coverage. He discussed Trader Joe’s and their inward facing store front. He stated that Trader Joe’s uses signs on the back of their shelving against the windows. He said CVS is another example. He asked how the ordinance would apply to Lunds & Byerlys. Ms. Monson explained that Trader Joe’s signage is approved under a plan unit development and has its own specific signage regulations and requirements. She said she would have to double check to see what the code says. As for Lunds and Byerly’s, staff would have to research what is considered the front façade of the building. It’s a large lot surrounded by streets. Commissioner Carper asked about the TexaTonka Shopping Center. Ms. Monson said the Texa-Tonka center has a lot of window signage. There are no opaque or mirrored windows. There is a lot of window signage which is easier and more affordable to take down versus replacing windows. Commissioner Carper asked if the city is deciding what a window looks like in terms of the display or what is placed within the three feet of depth. Ms. Monson said that as long as it’s visible within the first three feet of the space, we don’t care what is placed there. Page 10 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Commissioner Carpers asked Ms. Monson if the ordinance prohibits anything within the three feet from being displayed. Ms. Monson clarified that displays are permitted, as long as you can see past the merchandise for the first three feet into the commercial space. Commissioner Carper asked what kind of percentage of that view into the space is being discussed. Ms. Monson said ten percent of the window area is allowed to be blocked. The remaining 90 percent would need to remain open for the first three feet. Commissioner Peilen asked a few follow up questions regarding parking ramp signage, ensuring the ordinance does not preclude directional parking signs. Chair Robertson said he does sees all those as directional signage. Commissioner Peilen asked how the ordinance addresses temporary signs. Ms. Monson responded that temporary signs are allowed as long as they follow the temporary sign code requirements. Commissioner Carper asked if staff researched other city’s transparency ordinances. Ms. Monson explained that staff researched many other ordinances both local and across the country including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Seattle, Boulder, Denver, and Cincinnati, including examples from developments in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Carper asked Ms. Monson if she consulted with any professional such as architects who are designing the buildings, store planners who plan the inside of them and even potential business who may want to move into the community but could change their mind due to the nature of this ordinance. Ms. Monson explained they have discussed the ordinance with the planning commission which has a variety of people from different backgrounds including several architects. She stated that staff reached out to St. Paul as they have adopted similar standards for the Grand Ave corridor. St. Paul never responded, but staff took into consideration the standards St. Paul and other cities adopted when crafting the ordinance. Commissioner Carper explained that with his extensive history in retail he’s a bit uncomfortable with the ordinance. He asked Ms. Monson if other window transparency ordinances were studied in areas of high pedestrian activity, and stated downtown Hopkins and 50th and France as examples. Ms. Monson explained that staff researched many other ordinances both local and across the country. She stated that each treat it a bit differently, and that Minneapolis uses pedestrian overlay zones. Page 11 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Chair Robertson asked if anyone had further questions for staff. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak so he closed the public hearing, and brought the discussion back to the commission. Chair Robertson explained that planning commission has had several discussions about transparency and that he is still uncomfortable with this ordinance though he understands the intent. He stated that he believes you cannot design by formula. It can make buildings very monotonous as everything looks the same. He would prefer to see transparency as a set of guidelines rather than an ordinance. Chair Robertson said the ordinance does not give the architect enough freedom and is very limiting. He does not believe it will work. Commissioner Eckholm said his first reaction would be to disagree with Commissioner Robertson, but remembered attending a downtown Minneapolis meeting where they were discussing the new YMCA on Nicollet. He said there was difficulty meeting Minneapolis’ zoning and the innovative concept that the developer came up with, was still not approved. Ms. Monson said the ordinance realizes that not everyone can or should meet this ordinance. That there is flexibility in the ordinance for staff, city council, or planning commission to alter the requirements. Chair Robertson said this is a thought, but it’s still not clear what is allowed and how well it will be received. Commissioner Carper explained he is uncomfortable with the ordinance and doesn’t think all businesses can get a planned unit development like Trader Joe’s. He also expressed concerns about restricting the floor space within the building by three feet. Ms. Monson explained staff feels the ordinance can be easily met and that Trader Joe’s and Cub Foods signage and art would be considered alternate pedestrian amenities under the code. Commissioner Peilen expressed concerns that the ordinance is a response to a problem with a couple buildings but it goes far into regulating. Chair Robertson responded that zoning codes increase cost and understands that there are good reasons to it. He believes we need to also focus on affordable commercial space. Commissioner Kraft believed the intent of the ordinance is great, but believes there are other ways to make a more active and inviting streetscape. She suggested ways to equally prioritize different options; transparency is one option another is art along with other multitude creative solution to better meet the intent of what were after. Page 12 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Commissioner Carper said he agrees with spirit and intent of the ordinance but feels this may need more work. He suggested breaking the ordinance into parts. Chair Robertson asked Mr. Walther if the commission should vote on the ordinance and take the chance it wouldn’t pass or to table it and see it brought back again soon. Mr. Walther said there is no specific direction. This was a city generated request by council and they would like to see it come to them at some stage for their action. They are looking for Planning Commission’s input. Chair Robertson said there was good conversation and feels some of things that were troubling don’t seem to be addressed far enough. He stated that he would like to make sure City Council has enough information on where the Planning Commission stands. His preference would be to go forward with the vote. Commissioner Carper clarified that city council can choose to act on this ordinance in any matter they choose, so a yes and no by the planning commission does not guarantee anything. Commissioner Carper moved that the Planning Commission approve the zoning ordinance on window transparency on the ground-floor street facing facades. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion. Chair Robertson said the motion does not carry on a vote of 0-6 against the motion. Mr. Walther said the vote needs to have an affirmative motion to recommend denial of the ordinance. Chair Robertson requested a second motion. Commissioner Carper made a second motion to recommend denial of the zoning ordinance for window transparency on the ground-floor street facing facades. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4.Other Business 5.Communications 6.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm and was followed by a study session. Page 13 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Examples of transparency requirements in St. Louis Park and around the county: St. Louis Park, Planned Unit Developments West End •Within the pedestrian zone (3-7ft a.f.f.), all tenant storefront facades shall consist of at least 60% glazing •Visibility required for 3ft in depth. •Maximum 10% opaque or with signs. Parkway 25 (1)Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential facades: a.For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. b.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. 4800 (5) Façade. The following design requirements shall be applicable to all ground floor, non-residential facades along Excelsior Boulevard: a. Façade Transparency. 1. The façade shall be primarily transparent materials at the pedestrian level. 2. No more than 10% of the total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing view into and out of the interior. 3. Visibility into the tenant spaces from the exterior windows and doors shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement. PLACE a.The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non- residential street-facing facades and all ground floor non-residential facades on the west façade of Site D South, including live/work type II units: 1.The minimum ground floor transparency shall be 60% at the pedestrian level. 2.No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. Page 14 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements 3.Active permitted uses, not including storage areas or utility closets, shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. 4.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. The Elmwood (1)Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential street-facing facades: a.Minimum ground floor transparency shall be 65% at the pedestrian level. b.No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. c.Active permitted uses, not including storage areas or utility closets, shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. d.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center (1)Façade. a.The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades: i.Minimum ground floor transparency shall be 70% at the pedestrian level. ii.No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. iii.Active permitted uses shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. Storage areas and utility closets are prohibited within this 15 feet. iv.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. St Paul, Minnesota (Traditional Neighborhoods) Door and window openings - minimum and character. (a)For new commercial and civic buildings, windows and doors or openings shall comprise at least fifty (50) percent of the length and at least thirty (30) percent of the area of the ground floor along arterial and collector street facades. (b)Windows shall be designed with punched and recessed openings, in order to create a strong rhythm of light and shadow. (c)Glass on windows and doors shall be clear or slightly tinted, and allow views into and out of the interior. (d)Window shape, size and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization of the facade and the definition of the building. Page 15 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Minneapolis, Minnesota Transparency (pedestrian overlay): (a)Window area. At least forty (40) percent of the first floor façade of any nonresidential use that faces a public street or sidewalk shall be windows or doors of clear or lightly tinted glass that allow views into and out of the building at eye level. Windows shall be distributed in a more or less even manner. Minimum window area shall be measured between the height of two (2) feet and ten (10) feet above the finished level of the first floor. Portland, Oregon Transparency: (mixed-use districts) Window coverage requirements on key streets are 40% of ground floor area generally; and 60% of ground floor area in areas with the new Centers Main Street overlay zone. Seattle, Washington Design Guidelines: Street-Level Transparency: Ensure transparency of street-level uses (for uses such as nonresidential uses or residential lobbies), where appropriate, by keeping views open into spaces behind walls or plantings, at corners, or along narrow passageways. Choose semi- transparent rather than opaque screening. Boulder, Colorado Form Based Code Ground Story Transparency. Ground story transparency means the measurement of the percentage of the ground story facade that has highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum sixty percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. 75% ground commercial floors 20% all other floors Cincinnati, Ohio (a)Minimum Standard. Windows and transparent doors must be a minimum percentage of the street frontage, as specified in Schedule 1409-23 below. The percentage of the building's street elevation is measured between 2.5 feet and 7.0 feet in height above grade. Glass block, opaque or darkly tinted glass is not considered to be transparent. Refer to Figure 1409-23-A. Schedule 1409-23: Transparency Standard for Ground Floor Windows and Doors Street Transparency Percentage Each Street Frontage (lineal feet) Primary Street Secondary Street 40 or less 80 30 41—80 70 40 81 or more 60 50 Page 16 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 3) Title: Zoning regulations for ground floor transparency requirements Denver, Colorado 3. Rules of Measurement a. Zone of Transparency The Zone of Transparency is the area between 2 feet and 9 feet above the finished upper surface of the floor of the Street Level across the entire street- facing Street Level building facade. See Figure 13.1-100. i. A building facade is “street-facing” if it faces a name or numbered street, which shall be determined by extending a line the width of the facade and perpendicular to it to the zone lot boundary. If any portion of said line touches the right-of-way of a name or numbered street at the zone lot boundary, then said facade is “street-facing.” See Figure 13.1-101. ii. The required amount of transparency shall be provided within the zone of transparency for the subject building, unless an exception or alternative is permitted by this Code. b. Street Level Transparency Street Level transparency, primary or side street, is measured as the total amount of linear feet of windows or permitted alternatives provided within the Zone of Transparency divided by the total length of that same street-facing building facade (including any open parking structure entrances). 4. Window Requirements Windows shall be provided to satisfy the transparency requirement, except where a transparency alternative is permitted. All windows used to satisfy the transparency requirement shall comply with the following: a. All windows shall be a minimum of 5 feet in vertical dimension within the zone of transparency; and. b. Window glazing shall be clear and shall transmit at least 65 percent of the visible daylight (visible transmittance shall be 0.65 or greater); and c. No interior or exterior modifications, including temporary and permanent signage, window tinting, furnishings, fixtures, equipment or stored items within 3 feet of the windows will be permitted to reduce the effective minimum transparency standards by more than 25%. Open display of individual merchandise is permitted. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Discussion item: 4 Executive summary Title: Planning commission 2019 annual work plan Recommended action: Discuss the annual work plan with the representative(s) of planning commission. Policy consideration: Does the annual work plan address strategic priorities of the city council, comprehensive plan goals and planning commission’s duties? Summary: The complete planning commission annual work plan is attached for review. There are 15 initiatives identified. A major element of the planning commission’s work load is dependent on the number and complexity of planning, zoning and subdivision applications the city receives. There are also many activities related to implementation of the St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan. The highlights include: •Review development applications. Hold study sessions and public hearings in order to help make informed recommendations to city council. •Review long-range and small area plans. Review and provide input on plans and studies. •Review zoning changes. Review proposed zoning map amendments for consistency with the comprehensive plan future land use map (approximately 100 properties were re- guided) and review and provide input on proposed zoning code text amendments. The attached work plan was also shared with the city council at the February 25, 2019, annual meeting of boards and commissions. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Planning commission annual work plan Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: November 19, 2018 Updated: February 6, 2019 1 Work Plan│ Planning Commission Time Frame Initiative Strategic Priorities Purpose (see page 2 for definitions) Outcome (fill in after completed) Ongoing Review development applications, hold study sessions and hearings in order to make informed recommendations to city council ☐New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☒Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q4 Rezoning based on the future land use changes in the comprehensive plan ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☒Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q3-Q4 Texa-Tonka Neighborhood Commercial Node small area plan ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☒Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q3 Historic Walker-Lake revitalization plan ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☒Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q3-Q4 Food security and access study ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☒1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☒Council Initiated Project ☒Report Findings (council requested) ☐Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1-Q2 Mixed-Use zoning district requirements ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Planning commission 2019 annual work plan Page 2 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: November 19, 2018 Updated: February 6, 2019 2 Q1 C-1 district retail/service/liquor store size requirements ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☒Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1 Ground floor commercial window transparency requirements ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☒Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1 Small cell wireless facilities ordinance ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☒N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q4 Accessory dwelling unit ordinance ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☒Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q4 Form-Based Code for Transit Oriented Development areas ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q4 Architectural materials requirements ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☒N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1-Q4 Home occupation zoning requirements and work toward formal adoption ☒New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐Commission Initiated Project ☒Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Planning commission 2019 annual work plan Page 3 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: November 19, 2018 Updated: February 6, 2019 3 City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities 1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement OR Other Q4 Transitional industrial zoning district and work toward formal adoption ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐Ongoing Responsibility ☐1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1-Q4 Identify strategies to broaden participation and reduce barriers to public participation. Review notification methods, online opportunities to submit input, and consider when providing translation services, transportation or child care may be warranted. ☐New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☒Ongoing Responsibility ☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A ☒Commission Initiated Project ☐Council Initiated Project ☐Report Findings (council requested) ☒Formal Recommendation (council requested) Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Planning commission 2019 annual work plan Page 4 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: November 19, 2018 Updated: February 6, 2019 4 Purpose: definitions Modifications: Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: •Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. •If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting. •The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. •Project initiated by the board or commission Commission Initiated Project •Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Council Initiated Project •Initiated by the city council •Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city council in writing •No direct action is taken by the board/commission Report Findings •Initiated by the city council •Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city council on what action to take •A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' support Formal Recommandation Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Planning commission 2019 annual work plan Page 5 Board and Commission Annual Workplan Approved: November 19, 2018 Updated: February 6, 2019 5 Parking Lot Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative. Initiative Comments: Water conservation and water recycling Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground water resources. Housing analysis Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on present inventory and unmet demand, and for the ratio of owned vs. rental housing units. Home Occupations Conduct a comprehensive review and amendment of the home occupations ordinance. Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 4) Title: Planning commission 2019 annual work plan Page 6 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Discussion item: 5 Executive summary Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000) Recommended action: None at this time. This report is intended to provide an overview of the project and update of the preliminary design process. This project is scheduled to have a public hearing at the April 15 council meeting. Council will be asked to take final action on this project at the May 6 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish staff to continue to pursue the installation of the bikeway, bridge, and trail segments identified in this report? Summary: Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to add additional bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. This is achieved by creating a system that provides sidewalks approximately every 1/4 -mile and bikeways every 1/2 -mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. This project is included in the Connect the Park plan. The engineering department has been working on the preliminary design and associated public process. The segments included in the 2019 project are: •Dakota Avenue bikeway between Dakota Park and Lake Street. •Edgewood Avenue multi-use trail between BNSF rail road right of way and Cedar Lake Road. •Pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the BNSF Railroad connecting Edgewood Avenue and Dakota Park. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for 2019. At this time the project is proposed to be financed by using general obligation bonds and $2,918,400 in federal funds. For various reasons the project cost exceeds what had originally been anticipated. Additional information on project costs is discussed later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Overall project map Dakota Bridge recommended alignment Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Management Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000) Discussion Background: The Dakota Avenue bikeway and bridge corridor was first identified as a part of the Active Living: Sidewalk and Trails Plan in 2007 and was then integrated into the Connect the Park capital improvement plan in 2012. The Dakota Avenue corridor is centrally located and is key to enhancing walking and biking in the city by connecting destinations such as parks, schools, businesses, regional trails, and SWLRT. The BNSF railroad right of way is a physical barrier that prevents users on the north side of the railroad from traveling south to access the schools, parks and North Cedar Regional trail. Throughout the original public engagement process we heard from the community that a safe crossing of the railroad tracks was desired. Currently the only locations where pedestrians and bicyclists can cross the railroad are at Louisiana Avenue or at the east end of Cedar Lake Road at the Jewish Community Center (JCC), a distance of almost two miles. The project is broken in to three main components: Edgewood Avenue multi-use trail The project includes the construction of an off street multi-use trail along the east side of Edgewood Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to BNSF rail road right of way. This new trail will tie in to the enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities being constructed on Cedar Lake Road in 2019. The east curb line would be narrowed to allow a 10 foot wide multi-use trail to be built in the right of way. Currently the east side of the road is signed no parking. The proposed narrowed roadway will not allow parking on the east side. The recommended design width of the street will still allow efficient travel by trucks, buses and other commercial vehicles. The addition of a cul-de-sac at the south end of Edgewood Drive is proposed to allow for vehicles to turn around and to provide a better transition from the trail to the bridge. Bicycle and pedestrian bridge over BNSF A key component to this project is the bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the BNSF railroad right of way. This bridge connects the Edgewood trail to Dakota Park and Peter Hobart Elementary School. The bridge needs to get up and over the BNSF railroad by providing 23.5 feet of clearance between the rail line and the bottom of the bridge. The bridge approaches need a lot of space to match in to existing grade. Staff started by providing multiple options for the best alignment for the bridge. Generically speaking there were early concepts that had a westerly alignment that headed toward Nelson Park, a central alignment that went between Peter Hobart and Dakota Park and an easterly alignment that went between the baseball field and the CP Railroad right of way. After considerable public feedback and design review the central alignment between Peter Hobart and Dakota Park was chosen by staff as the recommended alignment. The bridge has been positioned to minimize the disturbance to open space in Dakota Park near Peter Hobart Elementary school. In addition, the alignment of the bridge allows the ramps to be centrally located for all users, whether accessing the park, regional trail or school. In order for the bridge and elevated structure to be constructed as proposed there is permanent right of way acquisition needed at the very south end of Edgewood Avenue on both the west and east side of the road. The concept alignment for the federal application did not Page 3 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000) anticipate the need for right of way acquisition, so this was not included in the capital improvement plan. However, after additional engineering and public feedback the recommended design will require right of way to be purchased. The current design concept includes stairs on the south side of the bridge, adjacent to the regional trail. Feedback from the community requested stairs to be explored on the north side of the bridge. Stairs are more difficult to install on the north side but will be explored in the final design. Dakota Avenue bikeway To complete this corridor connection the project includes bike facilities on Dakota Avenue from 26th Street to Lake Street. The proposed bikeway design is broken down into the following segments •26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard- on street “share the road”. This design has minimal impact to on street parking. The intersections at 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th Streets are narrowed to shorten pedestrian crossing distances. •Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street - buffered on street bike lanes. In order to fit the bike lanes within the existing width of the street, parking is proposed to be eliminated on one side of the street. A parking study was completed to determine the utilization of the on street parking in this area and it was found that between 25 and 50% of the available parking was utilized. From Minnetonka Boulevard to east 32nd Street parking is proposed to be removed from the west side of the road. From west 32nd Street to Lake Street parking is proposed to be removed from the east side of the road. In the short section between east and west 32nd Street all on street parking is eliminated for transitional purposes. Along Dakota Avenue the project also includes: •Installation of curb extensions to shorten pedestrian crossings and to reduce vehicle speeds along Dakota Avenue. •Two rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) crossing Dakota Avenue at Peter Hobart Elementary and at the high school. A detailed drawing of the staff recommendation can be found on the project website at: Dakota Bikeway and Bridge layouts Public art: The design of the Dakota Bridge is expected to have public art on the bridge structure. The art components are anticipated to be integrated in to the bridge railing, bridge lighting and as form liners for some of the concrete of the bridge structure. Public Process: Engineering hosted a public meeting on September 29, 2018 to gather public input prior to starting the preliminary design. A second open house was held on October 30, 2018 to inform the public about numerous concept designed that were developed based on feedback from the public and the corridor study. A third public meeting was held on March 19, 2019 to present the staff recommended design for the entire corridor. In addition to the public meetings, staff held individual meetings with the school district and the Edgewood Avenue business owners. Page 4 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000) If property owners were unable to attend the meetings, or if they had specific concerns that they wanted to walk through, staff met with them on site. In addition to these face to face meetings, a survey was conducted to get feedback between the second and third public meeting. The survey, pushed out through the city’s online communication outlets, asked participants about bridge alignment preferences. We had 380 people take the survey and collected 425 comments. Estimated Construction Costs: The following construction costs are based on the 30 percent preliminary plans and are subject to change as additional design refinement occurs as we progress toward final plans. Description Estimated cost Edgewood multiuse trail $600,000 Bridge over BNSF $3,900,000 Dakota bikeway $600,000 Public art $125,000 North bridge stairs $80,000 South bridge stairs $60,000 Relocation of utilities $225,000 Construction Total $5,590,000 The Metropolitan Council has a biennial regional solicitation process which helps distribute federal funding to locally-initiated projects in the metro area for regional transportation projects. As a part of the 2016 process the city submitted an application to obtain grant funding for the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the BNSF railroad that is included in this project. The city’s application was successful and we have been awarded $2,918,400 of federal funds from the Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council. The cost of the project as it is proposed is $1,887,500 over the costs estimated in the CIP. This is largely due to the need to acquire right of way to construct the bridge and design enhancements to build a more accessible bicycle and pedestrian facility from Cedar Lake Road to Lake Street. This additional cost may mean that other projects in the 10 year CIP will need to be delayed in order to move this project forward. The project is proposed to be funded as shown below. CIP Engineer's Estimate Construction cost $5,080,000 $5,590,000 Engineering and administration $1,270,000 $1,647,500 Land acquisition/ right of way $0.00 $1,000,000 Total $6,350,000 $8,237,500 Funding Sources Bridge and bikeways (GO Bonds) $3,431,600 $5,319,100 Federal Aid $2,918,400 $2,918,400 Total $6,350,000 $8,237,500 Page 5 Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000) Proposed schedule: The schedule for the project to facilitate meeting the federal deadlines for this project is as follows: Public hearing April 15, 2019 Approve preliminary layout May 6, 2019 Federal Aid preliminary plan submittal (60%) July 2019 City Council - Approve Final Plans November 2019 Federal Aid final plan submittal November 2019 Construction February 2020 – Late 2020 Next steps: A public hearing is scheduled for April 15, 2019 and council will be asked be asked to approve the preliminary layout on May 6, 2019. The approval of the preliminary layout in early May is critical in allowing the project documents to be finalized by late 2019. The council will be asked to approve the final plans and authorize staff to advertise for bids in late 2019. At that time staff will provide an updated construction estimate, funding, and CIP details. If we do not meet these deadlines, we will put the federal funding in jeopardy. In addition, it is important that construction starts in early 2020 in order to ensure that we can coordinate with construction activities occurring at Peter Hobart Elementary School. 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ Dakota Park bridge and bikeway project Legend Proposed pedestrian and bike bridge Proposed bikeway Bikeway alternatives Existing bikeways Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000)Page 6 OPEN HOUSE #3 - March 19th, 2019DAKOTA - EDGEWOODTRAIL BRIDGEAlt 1 - Concept PlanRecommended Alernative - Pedestrian Bridge Alternative 1Alt 1 - Birdseye Looking NorthAlt 1 - Birdseye Looking SouthStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000)Page 7 OPEN HOUSE #3 - March 19th, 2019DAKOTA - EDGEWOODTRAIL BRIDGERecommended Alternative - Alternative 1 Detail Views (South)Alt 1 (South Approach) - Birdeye View Looking NorthwestAlt 1 (South Approach) - Perspective Looking EastAlt 1 (South Approach) - Birdeye View Looking EastAlt 1 (South Approach) - Birdeye View Looking SouthwestStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000)Page 8 OPEN HOUSE #3 - March 19th, 2019DAKOTA - EDGEWOODTRAIL BRIDGERecommended Alternative - Alternative 1 Detail Views (North)Alt 1 (North Approach)- Perspective Looking WestAlt 1 (North Approach) - Perspective Looking WestAlt 1 (North Approach) - Birdeye Looking EastAlt 1 (North Approach) - Birdeye Looking SouthStudy session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 5) Title: 2019 Connect the Park update- Dakota/ Edgewood Bikeway and Bridge (4019-2000)Page 9 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Proposed property acquisition - 5643 Minnetonka Boulevard Recommended action: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions or concerns about the proposed purchase of this property. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to acquire the property at 5643 Minnetonka Boulevard for $230,000 so as to continue efforts to facilitate the development of affordable housing in this location? Summary: In May 2018 the EDA purchased a foreclosed, single-family property at 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard for the purpose of facilitating redevelopment of the property along with the three adjacent properties to the west. The properties are zoned R-4 medium-density multi- family residential. The intent of the acquisition was to facilitate land assemblage that could ultimately be redeveloped with affordable housing such as row homes or townhomes. Consistent with this goal and per EDA directive, staff continues to pursue the remaining properties as they become available. Last month, staff was approached by owners of the neighboring property located at 5643 Minnetonka Blvd inquiring if the EDA was interested in purchasing their property. Staff subsequently negotiated a purchase price of $230,000. The City Assessor examined this value and concurred that the proposed purchase price is within market. Should the EDA acquire the property staff would pursue either a full deconstruction and demolition of the house, allowing for a majority of the materials to be reused, or moving the house to a location outside of St. Louis Park for reuse in its entirety. EDA ownership of the property would allow the city to continue efforts to facilitate and guide redevelopment of these single family homes and expand the city’s stock of affordable row homes or townhomes. A purchase agreement for 5639 Minnetonka Blvd is being prepared for EDA’s review and approval in the coming weeks. Financial or budget considerations: The $230,000 cost to acquire the property is allocated within the 2019 Development Fund budget. The EDA could incur additional costs related to property management before the property is redeveloped. The cost of acquisition and related expenses would be covered by the Development Fund with the intent to recoup the EDA’s investment from the future sale of the properties. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Location map Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Colonial Apts Church Roller Garden Single Family Homes Zoned R-4 Subject Site 5643 Minnetonka Blvd EDA Property 5639 Minnetonka Blvd MINNETONKA BLVD LAKE ST WWEBSTER AVE SXENWOOD AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SWEBSTER AVE S5643 Minnetonka BlvdLocation Map Ü 0 0.0250.0125 Miles Study Session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 6) Title: Proposed property acquisition - 5643 Minnetonka Boulevard Page 2 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 8, 2019 Written report: 7 Executive summary Title: Zero waste packaging ordinance amendment Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to provide the city council with an update on proposed changes and additions to the city’s zero waste packaging ordinance. Policy consideration: Does council support staff’s recommended changes to the zero waste packaging ordinance? Summary: The zero waste packaging ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2017. Since that time, staff have worked with impacted businesses to make the switch to compliant food packaging. Staff have also worked to educate residents on how to properly discard these items whether they are at home, at an event or at a restaurant. Through the implementation process staff have found situations where clarification and changes in the ordinance would help reduce confusion for business and residents, decrease waste and minimize contamination organics and recycling. It is our understanding that city council would like to continue to move towards zero waste by eliminating our exemptions when other options are available. Staff is therefore recommending the following changes to the zero waste packaging ordinance: •Require that lids for cups and containers be of the same category of packaging •Require all compostable cups (paper or plastic) be labeled to indicate compostability •Remove plastic utensils from the exclusions and require single-use utensils to be compostable •Require that straws be provided “by request only” •Require that the organizations hosting food trucks provide collection containers for organics and/or recycling •Add a requirement for co-location of collection containers to the ordinance •Remove specific administrative penalty information from the ordinance and include it in the city’s fee schedule approved annually by Council Financial or budget considerations: None Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Emily Barker, Solid Waste Specialist Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Zero waste packaging ordinance amendment Discussion Background: The zero waste packaging ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2017. Staff works with impacted businesses on an ongoing basis to ensure compliant packaging. Staff also works to educate residents on how to properly discard these items, whether they are at home, an event or at a restaurant. Staff has found situations where items that could be recycled or composted were thrown in the garbage due to a lack of labeling or confusion caused by packaging that has a mix of compostable and recyclable components. In addition, staff have found that utensils are a significant cause of contamination, especially in organics. Present considerations: Staff is recommending changes to the zero waste packaging ordinance to reduce confusion for business and residents, decrease waste and minimize contamination organics and recycling. Require that lids for cups and containers be of the same category of packaging This change would require that lids for compostable cups and containers be compostable and lids for recyclable cups and containers be recyclable. Confusion and contamination are caused by packaging combinations that mix recyclable and compostable components (e.g. compostable cups with recyclable lids). Effective Date: January 1, 2020, for mobile use-food (e.g. food trucks); July 1, 2020, for all others. Require all compostable cups (paper or plastic) be labeled to indicate compostability This change is being made to help customers understand which products are compostable. Cups that are not labeled are particularly difficult to differentiate from non-compostable cups. All cups would need to be labeled with one or both of the following: •Text: one or more of the following words - “compostable,” “certified compostable,” “commercially compostable” or other such language. “Made from plants,” “bio-based,” or “biodegradable” would not be acceptable alternatives on their own, as they do not necessarily mean a product is compostable. •Logo: the logo of a third party certification or testing body (e.g. BPI or Cedar Grove). Effective Date: January 1, 2020, for mobile use-food (food trucks); July 1, 2020, for all others. Remove plastic utensils from the exclusions and require single-use utensils to be compostable This change would remove plastic utensils (forks, spoons, knives) from the exclusion list and require utensils to be compostable. Plastic utensils cannot be recycled due to their size and shape and inability to be properly sorted. This change would reduce contamination of organics and recycling, especially at events and quick service restaurants where consumers are often responsible for sorting items for disposal. Effective Date: January 1, 2020, for all food establishments. Require that straws be provided “by request only” This change would require that food establishments only provide straws to patrons who request them. While this change would not require straws to be compostable, staff believes Study session meeting of April 8, 2019 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Zero waste packaging ordinance amendment this would reduce usage and thus reduce waste. Like utensils, straws cannot be recycled due to collection and sorting systems. Effective Date: January 1, 2020, for all food establishments. Require that organizations hosting food trucks provide collection containers for organics and/or recycling This change would remove the current requirement that food trucks provide collection containers for recycling and/or organics. Most often the hosting organization, such as an event organizer or local business, is coordinating collection containers. Staff believe the most effective way to capture the recyclable and compostable items from food trucks is to require the hosting organization ensure there are appropriate containers. Effective Date: upon adoption. Add the requirement for co-location of collection containers to the ordinance This change clarifies that containers for the collection of recyclable and/or compostable packaging must be co-located with garbage containers. The co-location of bins is currently required through the administrative rules. By adding this requirement to the ordinance itself, it provides better clarity for the food establishments and makes enforcement easier for the city. Effective Date: upon adoption. Remove specific administrative penalty cost information from the ordinance and include it in the city’s annual fee schedule This change will amend the violation section of the ordinance. Fines could then be reviewed, adjusted and approved by council on an annual basis, as with all other administrative penalties in the city. Effective Date: upon adoption. Next steps: • Send summary of proposed changes to impacted parties April 9, 2019 • Request feedback from impacted parties April 22, 2019 • Meet with impacted parties (if necessary) April/May 2019 • First reading of the amended ordinance May 20, 2019 • Second reading of amended ordinance June 17, 2019