AGENDA APRIL 26, 2021

All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with the local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056. The St. Louis Park City Council will meet on April 26, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. by videoconference to reconvene the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE), which will be followed by a joint study session with the St. Louis Park Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. Meeting participants will meet by electronic device or phone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports.

Members of the public who want to address the council during the reconvene of the LBAE should call the 952.562.2886. Call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided.

Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or by calling +1.312.535.8110 and using access code 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council members and staff participating from multiple locations.

6:30 p.m. – RECONVENE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION (LBAE)

Immediately following LBAE – STUDY SESSION Discussion items 1. 30 mins. Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review 2. 30 mins Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review 3. 60 mins. Zoning code size limits for houses 4. 5 mins. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization 5 mins. Communications/updates (verbal)

Written reports

5. March 2021 monthly financial report 6. First quarter investment report (January – March 2021) 7. Redistricting update 8. Sustainability division update for Q2 2021 9. Freight rail switching wye 10. Development update 11. Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard

The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.

2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Reconvene – April 26, 2021 Virtual Meeting Format

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Reconvene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

2. Roll Call – Declaration of Quorum

3. Acknowledgement of Trained Members (Kraft & Rog)

4. Review of Properties in Appeal

a. Board Action - Where Petitioner & Assessing Staff are Not in Agreement

b. Board Action – Where Petitioner has requested late addition to roster and staff has not had time to complete value review (these continue until the board adjourns)

c. Board Action – Where Petitioner has withdrawn or not responded

d. Board Action - Where Petitioner & Assessing Staff are in Mutual Agreement

For appeals in groups a-b-c, it is suggested that the board review each parcel individually, discuss as you will and make individual board rulings. For the mutual agreement category, each parcel should be read into the record and the board may take one group action per DOR direction (April 2016).

5. Instruct Assessor to Complete Record of Changes for Submittal

6. Instruct Assessor to Inform Petitioners of Board Action via Mail

7. Complete the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Certification Form

8. Adjourn if Board business is completed Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 2 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

Background for the 2021 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization All property owners are entitled to the right of appeal regarding their classification and market value. The City is required by statute to conduct a Local Board of Appeal & Equalization meeting to hear appeals or conduct an open book meeting with the next options being the County Board of Appeal & Equalization and ultimately to the Minnesota State Tax Court.

The focus for the board is: the property classification which is determined by use; and, the market value which is based on the characteristics of the real estate and market conditions as of the date of the assessment (January 2, 2021). Minnesota statute requires that all properties are assessed at full market value. The two dominant definitions of market value are:

MN Statute 272.03 – “Market value” means the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm’s length transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered.

Appraisal Institute – The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress. (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, Appraisal Institute [2008], page 23)

The Board convened on April 12, 2021 at which meeting a total of eight (8) parcels were recognized to be under appeal. The Board set the process and chose to reconvene April 26 to review the merit of each appeal and to rule on them.

A few housekeeping observations are made for the reference of the board.

• One trained and certified Board member (Kraft and/or Rog) must be present at each meeting the Board is in session. Best practice is for multiple trained members.

• Timeline of the assessment: The assessment as of January 2, 2021 is set relative to market activity occurring prior to the date of assessment. The potential value influence arising from the Covid-19 pandemic will be reviewed from the perspective of market reactions in setting the 2021 assessment.

• The time window for the board to conclude business is 20 days after convening.

• It is essential that the Board rules on each question before it and likewise that the Board recognizes that it can reduce, sustain or increase valuations as deemed necessary.

• Important – DOR direction: “It is the board’s responsibility to hear all appeals presented until the board adjourns. A property owner can present their appeal at the initial meeting or at any of the reconvene meetings. The board must hear that appeal and make a decision. The board cannot dismiss the property owner’s appeal, unless the meeting is adjourned.” The Hennepin County Assessor has reviewed that language and requested that Local Boards accept appeals until final adjournment. We are doing so. Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 3 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

• At the writing of this Board packet, staff has added one (1) additional appeal to the roster and endeavored to respond in a timely fashion.

• Prior to adjourning, the board should instruct the assessor to submit a record of their actions on the Department of Revenue required form.

• Finally, the Local Board of Appeal Certification Form must be signed at each Board meeting by all Board members present. The Hennepin delegate takes care of this item.

Background to Valuation Methodologies: The modeling associated with the mass assessment accommodates variations between neighborhoods, within neighborhoods and includes consideration of location, age, style, size, finish materials, condition, updating, etc. depending on the information available. Adjustments and valuation change orders have been made where necessary during the informal review process prior to the Board.

The Board process differs from mass valuation modeling in that the assessing staff re-appraises the subject property individually by direct comparison to market transactions. As part of the review process, staff frequently re-inspects properties to review the accuracy of attributes and especially current condition which is often a highly important variable. This facet of routine business has not occurred for the 2021 Board season due to the pandemic. Instead, staff has engaged the property owner in a candid conversation of the property condition and attributes which depends a bit on the last interior inspection date.

In cases where the revaluation does not result in a conclusion satisfactory to the appellant, the appeal process has been outlined. As such, the Local Board depends on active participation from all parties involved including the property owner, assessing staff and the board members. All property owners are requested to state their basis of appeal, their opinion of the market value and informed that they may present information in written form and by testimony supporting their opinion of value and/or classification. Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 4 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

Focal Points for the Board – Agenda as Indicated on Cover Sheet, decisions on:

1. Board Action – One (1) appeal has not been resolved to a mutual agreement between the property owner’s tax representative and assessing staff. It is requested that the Board hear and decide the merits of the case. We have informed the owner and their representative that the Board commonly allows 5-10 minutes for presentation followed by a 3-5 minute presentation by the assessing staff. The Board may adjust these time allowances as needed.

2. Board Action – per the DOR direction we have accepted and resolved one (1) appeal submitted after the April 12 published date. This appeal is highlighted yellow on the reconvene roster. Should there be additional late appeals in the time between this board packet and the date of reconvene, we will be requesting their addition to the roster with proviso that we may not have completed the review due to time constraints.

3. Board Action – for cases where the petitioner has not responded, denied information or has chosen to withdraw. One (1) appeal fits this category with appellant not responsive to multiple contact attempts. The Board is reminded that some cases end up in this category almost every year and they are properly listed on the board roster so they are eligible to appeal at the next level.

4. Board Action – Seven (7) appeals have been reviewed with the result that the property owner and assessing staff have reached a mutually acceptable valuation (no classifications were appealed). It is requested that the resolution for each parcel be read into the record after which the Board may take one group action to affirm the mutually agreed upon valuations.

Following your decision, each property owner will be notified via letter of the Board action and to remind them that they are eligible to appeal to the County Board. The Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization begins June 14, 2021. An application is requested by the County no later than May 21st. To appear before the County Board, all appellants must first have appealed to the St. Louis Park Board of Appeal and Equalization. Property owners may also appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court.

Thank you for serving on the Board.

Prepared by: St. Louis Park Assessing Staff Cory Bultema, city assessor Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 5 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

Tab Summary

Background & Focal Points for the Board

Tab 1: Roster of All Appeals for Board Action (the final roster update will be available to the Board for the meeting)

Tab 2: 5100 35th Street Appeal – Staff Report (owner/tax rep did not supply materials for the Board report) Reconvene meeting of April 26, 2021 Page 6 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

Roster - City of St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization - Reconvene April 26, 2021

Contact AFTER published date of the Board -- added per DOR Directive Reference 2021 Appealed Assessing Owner Board Name Property Address Property ID # 2020 Value Classification 2021 Value Revaluation Indicated Action

IC Industrial REIT (by Tax Rep) 5100 35th Street W 06-028-24-32-0008 $6,000,000 I - Industrial $6,780,000 $7,400,000 Rep - Appeal Robert Thompson Jr. 8441 35th St W 18-117-21-42-0014 $248,200 R-Single Family - H $283,700 Sustain No Response M & J Neale 3601 Lynn Ave S 06-028-24-43-0053 $362,300 DB - Double Bungalow $430,000 $405,000 Agree Steven Feldman 9401 Franklin Ave W 07-117-21-22-0001 $476,700 R-Single Family - H $520,400 $495,000 Agree Shirley Carlson 2421 Decatur Ave S 07-117-21-24-0054 $255,600 R-Single Family - H $292,200 $280,000 Agree Grigory Livshits 2613 Edgewood Ave S 08-117-21-41-0106 $308,800 R-Single Family - H $318,700 $285,000 Agree D. Peter Revocable Trust 3354 Zarthan Ave S 16-117-21-24-0186 $301,600 R-Single Family Non $324,500 $324,500 Agree Caroline Walstead 3104 Dakota Ave S 17-117-21-11-0170 $291,100 R-Single Family - H $325,400 $291,100 Agree Bruce Bolduc 2308 Willow La S 31-029-24-12-0011 $610,300 R-Single Family - H $665,700 $647,000 Agree Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 7 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC 5100 35th St W 06-028-24-32-0008

2021 Assessed Value: $6,780,000 Recommendation: $7,300,000 to $7,500,000

This report is not an appraisal as defined in M.S. § 82B.02 (subd.3) nor does it comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. It is intended to be used as a reference only and any use other than its intended use is prohibited and unlawful. The author does not represent this to be an appraisal and is not responsible for any inappropriate use. It is a report of public records using a mass appraisal technique. Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 8 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

City of St. Louis Park Assessing Department 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Staff Report Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC Property Owner(s): Property Address: 5100 35th St W PID #: 06-028-24-32-0008

Market Value Assessment Year 2021 $6,780,000 Assessment Year 2020 $6,000,000 Assessment Year 2019 $5,450,000

Sale: June 9, 2017 - 11,170,000 (01 - Warranty Deed)

Assessor Recommendation: $7,300,000 to $7,500,000

Appraiser: Last Inspection Date:

BN September 17, 2019

Comments:

The subject property is a 121,985 square foot office warehouse with 8,063 square feet of office space and clearance heights ranging from 22' to 28'. The building was constructed in 1960 and a 28,160 square feet addition was added to the building in 2008. The building is considered to be in overall average condition. The subject has had two sales within the last 6 years. It sold in February of 2015 for $10.3 million with an appraisal at the time at $10.2 million. The latest sale was in June 2017 for $11.17 million as part of a portfolio with allocated sales prices based on the income streams of each property.

Industrial properties with gross building areas (GBA) over 75,000 square feet with sale dates after January 1, 2019 in suburban Hennepin County were analyzed. There were a total of 37 comparables in this search parameter with the average GBA of 128,174 square feet and the average sale price of $76.33 per GBA. Four comparable properties were chosen. Three of the comparables chosen are within close proximity to the subject. The fourth comparable, in Maple Grove, was chosen due to the fact that it is very close in size and is a single tenant building. The chosen comparables range in sale price from $55.20/sf to $109.32/sf.

Comparable 1 sold December 15, 2020. This is a single tenant building in close proximity to the subject with a similar year built. This property does have considerable more office finish with 35% compared to the subject's 7% and a lower average clear height of 16'. The sale works out to $88.99 per square foot. Comparable 2 consists of three adjacent industrial properties that sold under one transaction with one appraisal to support the total sale price. The sale date on this comparable was September 11, 2020 for $109.32 per square foot. These are multi-tenant buildings that are one property to the east of the subject. The improvements in this comparable

2021 Board of Appeal and Equalization Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 9 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

sale were built in 1962, 1963 and 1966 so a similar vintage to the subject. The average clear height in these buildings is 14' and there is 41% office finish. Comparable 3 is a multi-tenant building that was chosen due to it's proximity to the subject. This property sold April 9, 2020 for $93.60/sf as part of a portfolio of properties. This property has a average clear height of 13.5' and 61% office finish. Comparable 4 was chosen due to it's close size to the subject and given that it is a single tenant property. This comparable had been vacant for over a year before the sale. This is the oldest of the transaction given the December 16, 2019 sale date at $55.20/sf. This property transacted at $55.20 per square foot with the buyer noting that approximately $200,000 in repairs were needed. This property has average clear heights of 30' and 19% office finish.

The petitioner for the appeal failed to provide the needed income and expense information for the subject as requested. An income analysis was done using market rents, vacancy and CAP rate. This analysis supports a value range of $7,300,000 to $7,500,000 ($59.84/sf to $61.48/sf).

Giving weight to both the sales comparables and the market derived income approach, we recommend a value range of $7,300,000 to $7,500,000.

2021 Board of Appeal and Equalization Gabriel Ehlers-Ryan, LLC Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 10 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

Property Under Appeal -- 5100 35th Street W Property ID# 06-028-24-32-0008 Age & Condition 1960 - Average 2020 Mkt Value $6,000,000 GBA 121,985 2021 Mkt Value $6,780,000 Total Value vs. GBA $55.58 Land Size 240,881 Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 11 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Comparable Sales

1 Address 4521 State Hwy 7 Sale Date 12/15/2020 Property ID# 06-028-24-12-0103 Age & Condition 1958-Average Sale Price $8,100,000 GBA 91,024 Buyer Sela Investments, Ltd., LLP Sale Price per GBA $88.99 Seller Basic Properties LP Land Size 156,130

2 Address 4906 35th St W., etal Sale Date 9/11/2020 Property ID# 06-028-24-31-0005; -0006; &-0007 Age & Condition 1962/63/66-Average Sale Price $8,379,000 GBA 76,646 Buyer WSP Beltline, LLC Sale Price per GBA $109.32 Seller Belt Line Properties, Inc. Land Size 246,890 Reconvene mee ting of April 26, 2021 Page 12 Title: 2021 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization

3 Address 4200 Park Glen Rd Sale Date 4/9/2020 Property ID# 06-028-24-14-0097 Age & Condition 1987-Average Sale Price $7,760,000 GBA 82,907 Buyer B9 Polar Park Glen Corp LLC Sale Price per GBA $93.60 Seller CSM Investors, Inc. Land Size 280,214

4 Address 7500 Meridian Cir N Sale Date 12/16/2019 Property ID# 25-119-22-11-0009 Age & Condition 1996-Average Sale Price $6,700,000 GBA 121,384 Buyer MIP 7500 Meridian, LLC Sale Price per GBA $55.20 Seller OfficeMax Incorporated Land Size 368,752 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Discussion item: 1

Executive summary

Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review

Recommended action: Discuss the annual work plan with representative(s) of parks and recreation advisory commission (PRAC).

Policy consideration: Does the annual work plan meet the city councils’ expectations of the and parks and recreation advisory commission?

Summary: The complete parks and recreation advisory commission work plan is attached for review. There are seven initiatives identified for 2021. The new initiatives for 2021 are as follows: • Review and provide feedback on the Historical Society’s master plan. • Assist with the 40th anniversary celebration of the Westwood Hills Nature Center. • Review and provide feedback on the Webster Park master plan.

Bruce Cantor, the 2021 PRAC chair will be present at the meeting.

Financial or budget considerations: None.

Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.

Supporting documents: PRAC annual work plan PRAC annual report

Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, senior office assistant Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review Board and Commission Annual Workplan

Presented to council April 26, 2021 Workplan Template│ Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Time Initiative Strategic Purpose Outcome (fill in after Frame Priorities (see page 2 for definitions) completed) 1st Review Historical Society’s master plan. ☒New Initiative ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project quarter ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ (council requested) ☐N/A Report Findings ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) 2nd Continue with the Minnehaha Creek ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project quarter clean‐up (April 24, 2021) ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Initiative N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) 3rd Review and provide input on Webster ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project quarter Park master plan process. ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☐N/A ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) 4th Host annual staff appreciation luncheon ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project quarter ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☐N/A ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) 2021 Westwood Hills Nature Center 40th ☒New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project Anniversary Celebration ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☐N/A ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Monthly Invite Youth Associations and other ☐New ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project community groups to discuss Initiative ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project opportunities and successes monthly. ☒Continued ☐N/A ☐ Report Findings (council requested) Initiative ☐ Formal Recommendation (council ☐ Ongoing requested) Responsibility 1 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review Board and Commission Annual Workplan

As Encourage Commissioners to volunteer ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project needed at special events such as ShamROC Ice ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings (council requested) Bowling, Ugly Sweater Dash, Penny ☐N/A Carnival, ROCtoberfest, July 4th ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Fireworks, Community Link event, Responsibility requested) Concerts in the Park, etc.

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

2 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review Board and Commission Annual Workplan

Purpose: definitions Commission Initiated Project • Project initiated by the board or commission

Council Initiated Project • Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council

Report Findings

•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

Formal Recommandation • 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

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.

3 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review Board and Commission Annual Workplan

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:

4 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review

2021 Annual Report

Board or Commission: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission

Commissioners Bruce Cantor, chair Leah Hollingsworth, vice chair Rich Bluma George Foulkes Elizabeth Griffin George Hagemann Dahlia Krebs Peter May

Staff Cindy Walsh, operations and recreation director Rick Beane, parks superintendent Jason West, recreation superintendent Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review

2021 Annual Report

Board or Commission: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission

I. 2020 Goals and Key Initiatives:

a. Westwood Hills Nature Center grand opening and ribbon cutting. The nature centers grand opening and ribbon cutting was held on September 13, 2020.

b. Review Access to Fun (scholarship program) guidelines and provide recommendations. The Commission met with staff to review the new Access to Fun guidelines. Following feedback from the commission, staff introduced the new guidelines to our customers.

c. Review the Historical Society’s master plan. Due to COVID‐19, this project was paused and will resume review in 2021.

II. 2021 Goals: The Commission’s main goals for 2021 are as follows:

a. The commission will invite the St. Louis Park Historical Society to present their master plan, including their plans for The Depot. b. The master plan for Webster Park will be reviewed and feedback will be provided to staff. c. Commission members will assist in the planning and celebration for Westwood Hills Nature Center’s 40th Anniversary. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 8 Title: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2021 workplan review

2021 Annual Report

Board or Commission: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission

III. Race Equity and Inclusion:

The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will incorporate and promote race equity and inclusion by reviewing all projects and programs with a race and equity lens.

IV. Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic priorities?

The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission places a great emphasis on environmental stewardship. They discussed the possibility of purchasing electric blowers and chainsaws for the maintenance crew. They were also involved in talking through the options for the new Westwood Hills Nature Center that would work towards the council’s goal of achieving Zero Energy. PRAC also leads the annual Minnehaha Creek clean up event where several truckloads of garbage are removed from the creek annually. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meets with the youth associations and other community groups to encourage participation and encourages them to find ways to break down barriers. They have been committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement for many years before it became a strategic priority. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Discussion item: 2

Executive summary

Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review

Recommended action: Please review the work plan and provide comments to planning commissioners.

Policy consideration: Does the workplan list and priorities align with city goals and priorities?

Summary: The planning commission and board of zoning appeals respectfully submit their 2021 annual reports to city council. Included at the end of the planning commission report is the commission’s 2021 work plan, which the chair will briefly present to city council. The work plan is will be the focus of the council discussion. The board of zoning appeals and planning commission are separate bodies with different bylaws, responsibilities, and levels of authority. The individuals serving on each are the same.

Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.

Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.

Supporting documents: Planning commission annual report 2021 workplan BOZA annual report

Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review

St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2020 Annual Report

The St. Louis Park Planning Commission is an 8- member advisory body made up of citizen volunteers appointed by the city council. The planning commission reviews and makes recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments, development projects, land use studies and zoning amendments. It also holds public hearings where the public can give input to commission recommendations.

A new public art installation by Craig Synder and Homan Wong at the Bridgewater Bank project site. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 3

Commissioners Jessica Kraft, chair Jim Beneke Imran Dagane Matt Eckholm Courtney Erwin Tom Weber

Outgoing members Lynette Dumalag Claudia Johnston-Madison Carl Robertson

Staff Karen Barton, community development director Meg McMonigal, principal planner Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Jennifer Monson, senior planner Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 4

Executive summary

The planning commission is an eight-member advisory group of citizen volunteers appointed by the city council. The 2020 members included Jessica Kraft (chair), Jim Beneke (school representative), Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, and Tom Weber. Outgoing members included Lynette Dumalag, Claudia Johnston-Madison and Carl Robertson. Commissioners pride themselves in their thoughtful consideration of applications. Commissioners review detailed staff reports, conduct fair and civil public hearings, discuss complex issues in study sessions and provide sound recommendations in a timely fashion. Due to the COVID-19 global health pandemic, planning commission transitioned to meeting remotely starting in March 2020. All study sessions, public hearings, and neighborhood meetings for development projects were conducted by videoconference rather than meeting in person. For several months the city and commission focused on essential business only, which resulted in fewer study sessions. The commission continued to provide opportunities for public comment and meet statutory deadlines for reviewing projects during this time. 2020 accomplishments Key duties:

• Review development projects, planning studies and zoning amendments. • Hold public hearings and make recommendations to the city council. 2020 activities:

• Racial equity & inclusion training in a joint session with the environmental and sustainability commission (ESC). • The commission reviewed 22 applications in 2020, including development review of the Quentin, Union Park Flats, Bremer Bank, and the Xchange Medical Building. • Review of code amendments related to accessory dwelling units, architectural design requirements, painted signs, Historic Walker Lake mixed use zoning district, and miscellaneous code amendments. • Review of planning studies for the Historic Walker Lake district, the Wooddale Avenue light rail station area, single family building scale and home occupations.

2021 work plan Review development applications. Hold study sessions and hearings in order to make informed recommendations to city council. Long range planning activities. Review and provide input on studies.

• Transit-oriented development light rail transit station area planning updates • Review climate action, racial equity, inclusionary housing and food security and access Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 5

Zoning code studies

• Home occupations • Single family building scale • Revise parking requirements • Transit-oriented development district • Two-family dwellings in low density residential areas • Transitional industrial zoning district

Racial equity and inclusion

• 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 childcare may be warranted. • Participate in racial equity training.

Opportunities for collaboration If in-person commissioner training occurs in 2021, include other bodies like the environment and sustainability commission.

Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic priorities? Much of planning commission’s work deals with development and the built environment. The commission primarily promotes strategic priority #3: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development. Through review of development projects and new city policies, our work also supports 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; and #5: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.

Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 6

Applications Reviewed in 2020

Comprehensive Plan Amendments Conditional Use Permits Planned Unit Developments Rezoning Subdivisions/Plats Variances Zoning Code Amendments

6

3 5 11 3 6 1

2 5 6 4 1 4 1 4 2 2 3 6 2 5 5 2 9 5 2 2 6 3 1 2 8 6 10 1 4 2 3 6 7 6 2 1 4 1 15 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 9 5 5 8 4 6 7 7 6 7 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 7

Updated December 2020 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 8

Proposed developments

Beltline Boulevard Station Site

Location: 4601 and 4725 Hwy. 7 and 3130 Monterey Ave. S.

Description: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) continues to work with Sherman Development Associates LLC to pursue development of a mixed-use, transit-oriented development at the Green Line Extension / Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Beltline Boulevard Station site.

Developer: Sherman Development Associates LLC

Texa-Tonka Apartments

Location: 7916 Minnetonka Blvd. and 2939-2901 Texas Ave.

Description: Paster Properties submitted land use applications for a proposed redevelopment, Texa-Tonka Apartments, on the northeast corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard. The proposal includes a 101-unit, four to five-story multifamily building on the corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard, and an 11-unit, two-story town home building on the northern half of the site. The apartment building includes amenity spaces, underground parking and enclosed parking at the first floor and surface parking on-site with other site amenities. Both buildings provide walk up units for future residents. The development also helps connect the neighborhood to the Texa- Tonka shopping center and surrounding amenities like Rainbow Park and Cedar Lake Trail with a public trail connection through the site. The development will include 20 percent of the units as affordable at 50 percent area median income.

Planning commission will hold a public hearing and make recommendations on the applications in January 2021.

Developer: Paster Properties

SLP Living (formerly Platia Place)

Location: 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd.

Description: This project, now called SLP Living (previously Platia Place), includes a seven-story, 233-unit apartment building. Twenty percent of units will be affordable at 50 percent area median income (AMI). The project will comply with the city's inclusionary housing and green building policies. The building includes a level of structured parking, a second story amenity deck and an indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge.

Planning commission will hold a public hearing and make recommendations on the applications in January 2021.

Developer: Mortenson Development Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 9

Approved developments

Parkway Residences

Location: West 31st Street between Inglewood Ave. & Glenhurst Ave.

Description Sela Investments received approvals for Parkway Residences, located along West 31st Street near Glenhurst Avenue South. The development includes four new multifamily buildings with 223 units, as well as the rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings that contain 24 units, creating a total of 247 residential units. The development will include the removal of 12 existing buildings

Construction began on Parkway Place in 2020, which is expected to be open fall 2021. Construction for Parkway Flats is anticipated to begin in spring 2021.

Developer: Sela Investments

The Quentin

Location: 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road

Description: The Quentin is a 5 story, 79-unit apartment building that includes two levels of structured parking. The site will feature a new pedestrian trail connection from Cedar Lake Road along Quentin and a bicycle hub for residents. The site is served by multiple bus lines and is situated on the Cedar Lake Trail. The project features several sustainability features including a green roof on the east side of the parking pedestal; landscaping with no-mow, native plants, and drought/salt-tolerant landscaping; electric vehicle charging stations for residents and guests; and a solar array on the roof to offset common area electricity.

Construction began summer 2020 and will be complete summer 2021.

Developer: Patrick Crowe, Crowe Companies LLC

Union Park Flats

Location: 3700 Alabama Avenue

Description: Project for Pride in Living (PPL) has approval to construct a three story, 60-unit affordable apartment building on a portion of 3700 Alabama Avenue, the site currently owned and operated by Union Congregational Church. The site is three blocks from the Wooddale Light Rail Transit Station, which is currently under construction and will be completed in 2023. Union Church will sell a portion of their property to an affiliate of PPL; PPL will own and manage this new housing for the long term. The church will use the

Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 10

proceeds from the land sale to renovate the existing sanctuary and narthex to preserve the 1940s church building while making it more welcoming and accommodating.

Construction is a nticipated to begin fall 2022.

Developer: Project for Pride in Li ving

Xchange Medical Office

Location: 6009 Wayzata Blvd., 6112 14th St., 1345 Colorado Ave. and 1341 Colorado Ave.

Description: The Davis Group received approvals to construct a 77,500-square-foot medical office building near 6009 Wayzata Blvd. The development includes one level of underground parking with 51 parking spaces and three levels of medical office space above. The building is oriented towards Wayzata Boulevard to the north with the building's main entrance and a 253-space surface parking lot on the south side of the building.

Construction began fall 2020.

Developer: The Davis Group

Luxe Residential

Location: 5235 Wayzata Blvd.

Description: DLC Residential has received city approval for a planned unit development (PUD) for a new six-story apartment building in the West End, at the current Olive Garden site. The project will include 207 units ranging in size from studio to three- bedrooms and two levels of underground parking. The site will also include a new pocket park along 16th Street and pedestrian improvements connecting the apartment to the rest of the West End.

Construction anticipated to begin spring 2021.

Developer: Robinson Zamorano, Luxe Residential

Via

Location: SE quadrant of Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave

Description: PLACE, a non-profit developer, is constructing a mixed- use, mixed-income transit-oriented redevelopment at the southeast quadrant of Highway 7 & Wooddale Ave called Via. The plans include 217 apartment units, a bike shop, a makers’ space, e- generation and greenhouse and approximately 1-acre urban forest.

The proposed development incorporates a mix of renewable energy sources, including an anaerobic digester, a wind turbine and solar Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 11

panels, which will provide 90% of the heat and power for the development. The entire development is designed to achieve LEED certification.

Demolition of the former McGarvey building was complete in November 2017. Construction began in 2020 and will be complete in summer 2021.

Developer: PLACE

The Elmwood

Location: 5605 W 36th St

Description: 36th Street LLC, the owner of the 36th Street Business Center/American Legion at 5606 W. 36th Street, has approved plans for a 5 story, 70-unit mixed-use development called The Elmwood. The building will be marketed toward residents aged 55+ who lead active lifestyles. The development will be located on a 1-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Xenwood Avenue and 36th Street West. The Elmwood consists of market rate and affordable apartments, and approximately 4,400 square feet of leasable office/commercial space. The development includes on-street, surface, and underground parking and 1/4 acre of outdoor amenity space.

The building is expected to open February 2021.

Developer: 36th Street LLC

10 West End

Location: 1601 Utica Avenue S

Description: The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies have approved plans for an 11-story, 335,710 square feet Class A office building within The West End area. The building is Phase IV of the Central Park West and will include the building and one half of a planned parking structure, providing 1,200 stalls.

Key features include approximately 5,000 square feet of shared outdoor amenity space, 3,500 square feet of covered retail at ground level, a fitness facility, public locker rooms, and an indoor bike room that can be accessed from the linear civic space. The design of the building incorporates mostly Class I materials and provides a modern take on the durability of a brick warehouse building.

Construction will be complete February 2021.

Developer: The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 12

Arlington Row East and West

Location: Intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue

Description: Melrose Company received approval to develop two properties near the 7700 block of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue. The west parcel will be developed into two three-story apartment buildings with 34 units and off-street parking covered by a solar power carport. The east parcel will be developed into a three- story apartment building with 27 units and surface parking to the north.

Developer: Melrose Company

Completed projects

Bridgewater Bank

Location: 4424 and 4400 Excelsior Blvd. & 3743 Monterey Drive

Description: Bridgewater Bank has approvals to construct a four- story, 84,000-square-foot office building with a 7,000-square-foot bank branch, 7,000 square feet of retail and service space and three levels of structured parking. The first floor includes Bridgewater Bank's customer branch and retail space. The second, third and fourth floors include the bank's executive offices and opportunities for co-working entrepreneurial space. There is a plaza at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive with outdoor seating, space for public art and landscaping.

Construction of the building finished in summer 2020 and interior buildouts continued in fall 2020 for building tenants, including a new restaurant.

Westwood Hills Nature Center

Location: 8300 W. Franklin Ave.

Description: In the late 1950s, the city had the foresight to acquire 160 acres of open space that is now the much-treasured Westwood Hills Nature Center, located south of I-394 and east of Highway 169 just minutes from downtown. The center allows visitors of all ages and backgrounds to learn about and connect with nature through a variety of programming.

However, the aging interpretive center no longer meets the needs of visitors. Programming, staff operations and public needs have outgrown its small spaces, and it’s difficult for more than one programming activity to take place at any one time. The remote location of the interpretive center – removed from the parking lot Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 13

and at the top an uphill walk – presents challenges to visitors with disabilities, parents with small children and others. Providing more space and making the center accessible to the parking lot will allow a wider audience to enjoy the nature center for a variety of activities from passive to active.

The existence of the nature center, as well as construction of a new interpretive center, allows the city to showcase its leadership in environmental stewardship. The proposed project will connect people to nature through the site and building design, while also exhibiting innovative energy-saving measures in the city’s first net- zero energy building! This amenity provides a teaching tool for residents as well as providing long-term maintenance savings to the city.

The new interpretive center opened for visitors in summer 2020.

Urban Park Apartments

Location: 3601 Phillips Pkwy.

Description: The city council approved an application for construction of a second apartment building at Urban Park Apartments. The new building has 61 market rate apartments, two community rooms and a fitness center. The site also includes a pool and improved outdoor amenity space as part of the project.

Construction started in spring 2019 and residents began moving into the new building in the fall of 2020.

Developer: North Shore Development Partners

Elan West End

Location: Utica Avenue S

Description: Elan West End is phase II of Central Park West End. Plans were approved for the construction of a six-story apartment building with 164 residential units. The building is adjacent to Central Park West and the AC Hotel by Marriott. The development includes five affordable units at 60 percent area median income (AMI).

Developer: Greystar Real Estate Partners Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 14

Zoning code amendments

Mixed-Use 2 District (MX-2: Neighborhood Mixed-Use) The Historic Walker Lake commercial district in St. Louis Park is in the middle of a renaissance with both private and public reinvestment occurring. The city adopted the Historic Walker Lake Revitalization Plan in January 2020. One of the plan’s key recommendations is to create a new zoning district specific to the HWL area with a supplemental design guideline document. Based on this revitalization plan, staff and the planning commission drafted changes to the zoning ordinance including a new zoning district, Mixed-Use 2 District (MX-2, neighborhood mixed-use), that addresses building form and uses, and a separate design guideline document to provide guidance on the desired character and appearance of future infill development and reinvestment within the Historic Walker Lake district. The planning commission held a public hearing on October 21, 2020 and recommended approval of several amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the future land use map, the zoning code and the zoning map to implement the changes recommended in the Historic Walker Lake Revitalization plan. Accessory dwelling units An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a self-contained residential unit with its own living room, kitchen, and bathroom. ADUs are permanent installations that are legally part of a larger property that includes a standard single-family house. This housing is designed to be flexible and can generate rental income for the homeowners. ADUs have the potential to meet some of St. Louis Park’s housing goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, as well as help fulfill the following city council strategic priority: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development. Beginning in 2019, planning commissioners discussed policy questions and potential zoning ordinance changes around ADUs. Topics included the size and number of ADUs allowed per lot, the type of ADU allowed, setbacks, building height, parking, design components, the type of approval that would be required, and other issues. Staff and commissioners further refined the proposed ADU ordinance in three study sessions in 2020, and the planning commission recommended adoption of the ADU ordinance on September 16, 2020. Home occupations Narrowly focused changes to the home occupation regulations were adopted on July 17, 2019. During that effort, planning commission discussed additional policy issues that were beyond the initial limited scope. Planning commission and city council supported the more limited ordinance and wanted to explore further changes in 2020. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 15

In November 2020 staff and planning commission discussed a number of changes to regulations around home occupations. These changes include removing barbers/hairdressers from the prohibited uses list; allowing one outside employee to work at the property; allowing home occupations to be conducted in accessory buildings and to occupy more than 10% of the home. In addition, staff proposed moving the home occupation regulations from each of the residential zoning districts to a new subsection in the general residential district regulations section of the zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning amendment will be submitted to the council as a study session written report on January 11, 2021. If the council does not wish to discuss it at a future study session meeting, then staff will begin the formal process to adapt changes begins in 2021. Architectural design Section 36-366 of the city code regulates architectural design of buildings in St. Louis Park. The purpose of the architectural design standards is to serve the public interest by promoting a high standard of development in the city. The planning commission work plan includes a review and modification of the list of exterior materials approved for use in the St. Louis Park. The commission recommended approval of an ordinance amendment to include additional materials as class 1 and provide clarification on other materials on September 16, 2020. Painted signs Section 36-362 of the city code regulates signs in St. Louis Park. The purpose of the sign code is to establish standards for the size, placement and maintenance of signs. The sign regulations are intended to permit a safe, efficient, effective and aesthetic means of communication using signs which recognizes the need to maintain an attractive and appealing appearance of property and community. Previously this section of the code prohibited signs from being directly painted onto a building. Per city council’s direction, staff prepared a zoning code amendment to allow signs to be painted directly to buildings and added provisions requiring the signs be maintained in good repair and removed entirely when the sign is no longer used. Planning commission recommended approval of the amendment on September 16, 2020. Single-family building scale related to affordable housing In 2018, a request was submitted by city council members to review the housing regulations to prevent lower-value homes from being torn down or added on to for the construction of higher- value homes. Based on this request, staff researched the history of the low-density residential zoning requirements, and evaluated the scale of housing relative to lot sizes (i.e. ground floor area ratio and floor area ratio). On November 4, 2020 staff presented a report of these findings to planning commission.

Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 16

Staff will be presenting the report findings to city council in early 2021, and this item may return to the commission for additional discussion before a formal process to adapt changes begins in 2021. Miscellaneous amendments Periodically staff proposes an ordinance to amend various sections of the zoning code for the purpose of making changes that are consistent with current policy, correcting errors and making clarifications. Staff presented these items to the planning commission in study sessions on November 4 and November 18, 2020, and planning commission recommended approval of all amendments on December 2, 2020. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 17

Appendix A: Full List of 2020 Applications

Zoning code amendment – accessory dwelling units Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 19-15-ZA

Comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, planned unit development – Cedar Place (The Quentin) Applicant: Crowe Companies LLC Case No.: 19-36-CP, 19-37-PUD, 19-38-S

Preliminary and final plat, variance – Cedarwood Dachis Addition Applicant: Toni Dachis Case No.: 19-39-S, 19-40-VAR

Comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, planned unit development – Union Park Flats Applicant: Project for Pride in Living Case No.: 20-03-CP, 20-04-S, 20-05-PUD

Conditional use permit – Bremer Bank Applicant: Frauenshuh, Inc. Case No.: 20-07-CUP

Preliminary and final plat, conditional use permit, variance – Xchange Medical Office Applicant: The Davis Group Case No.: 20-09-S, 20-10-VAR, 20-11-CUP

Conditional Use Permit – 2400 Edgewood Avenue South Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 20-13-CUP

Zoning code amendment – architectural design Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 20-17-ZA

Zoning code amendment – painted signs Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 20-18-ZA

Comprehensive plan amendment, zoning code amendment – Historic Walker Lake Applicant: City of St. Louis park Case No.: 20-19-CP, 20-20-ZA Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 18

Special permit amendment – Nordic Ware Applicant: Dalquist Properties LLC Case No.: 20-23-SP

Conditional use permit – Pennsylvania Park Apartments Applicant: Waypoint Development LLC Case No.: 20-24-CUP

Zoning code amendment – miscellaneous zoning amendments Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 20-29-ZA

Study Session Reports and Discussions • Historic Walker Lake zoning district • Accessory dwelling units • Home occupations zoning ordinance • Racial equity and inclusion (joint session with Environment & Sustainability Commission) • Wooddale Avenue light rail transit station area planning • 2020 work plan revisited • Architectural design zoning code text amendment • Painted signs zoning code text amendment • Single-family building scale related to affordable housing • Miscellaneous zoning amendments Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 19

Appendix B: 2021 Work Plan

Time Initiative Strategic Purpose Frame Priorities (see last page for definitions) Ongoing Identify strategies to broaden ☐New Initiative ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project participation and reduce barriers to ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings public participation. Review notification ☐N/A (council requested) methods, online opportunities to submit ☒ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council input and consider when providing Responsibility requested) translation services, transportation or child care may be warranted. Ongoing Review development applications; hold ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project study sessions and hearings in order to ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ make informed recommendations to city ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) council. ☒ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q1-Q2 Single family building scale ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☒ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q1 Home occupation zoning requirements ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project and work toward formal adoption ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☒ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q2-Q4 Transit Oriented Development District ☐New Initiative ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project ☒Continued ☒ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings ☐N/A (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 20

Q2-Q3 Allow for two-family dwelling units ☒New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project (twin homes and duplexes) on ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☒ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ appropriately sized lots in low ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation density residential areas. (council Responsibility requested) Q2 Revisions to parking requirements in ☒New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project zoning code ☐Continued ☒ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q3-Q4 Identify needed updates to station area ☒New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project plans and next implementation steps ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q3-Q4 Food security and access study ☐New Initiative ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☒Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☒ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☒ ☐N/A Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q3-Q4 Hold planning commission meetings at ☒New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project off-site locations to foster community ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings relationships (high school, HACER, etc.). ☐N/A (council requested) ☒ Ongoing ☐ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q3-Q4 Racial equity training. Possibly joint ☒New Initiative ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ Commission Initiated Project training with other boards and ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings commissions like ESC and police advisory ☐N/A (council requested) commission. ☐ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Q4 Transitional industrial zoning district and ☒New Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ Commission Initiated Project work toward formal adoption ☐Continued ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ Council Initiated Project Initiative ☐ Report Findings ☐N/A (council requested) ☐ Ongoing ☒ Formal Recommendation (council Responsibility requested) Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 21

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 Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground water recycling 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.

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 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 22

Purpose: definitions

Commission Initiated Project • Project initiated by the board or commission

Council Initiated Project • Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council

Report Findings

• 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

Formal Recommandation • 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

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. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 23

2021 Annual Report Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals

Commissioners Jessica Kraft, chair Jim Beneke Imran Dagane Matt Eckholm Courtney Erwin Tom Weber

Outgoing members Lynette Dumalag Claudia Johnston-Madison Carl Robertson

Staff Karen Barton, community development director Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Jennifer Monson, senior planner Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 24

2021 Annual Report Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals

I. 2020 Goals and Key Initiatives: The (BOZA) is a seven-member board that makes final decisions on the following: 1. Variances to the regulations of the zoning ordinance. 2. Appeals from any order, decision, or interpretation of the text of the zoning ordinance made by staff.

The BOZA may also act in an advisory capacity on matters referred to it by the city council.

Section VI provides a summary of the BOZA actions resulting from applications received in 2020.

II. 2021 Goals: The BOZA strives to maintain the following goals each year as it hears variances and appeals to staff interpretations decisions:

a. Goal 1 - Insure that BOZA procedures and structure best facilitate the expeditious and fair resolution to disputes.

b. Goal 2 - Use cutting edge technology to increase citizens' access to the BOZA and the BOZA's ability to reach sound decisions through the best available access to factual and legal information. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 25

2021 Annual Report Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals

III. Race Equity and Inclusion: The BOZA will incorporate and promote race equity and inclusion in the key initiatives/activities identified in above by ensuring equal application of the judicial process to all cases, which are fairly decided based upon legally relevant factors. The BOZA will also be sensitive and responsive to the needs of a diverse community. The BOZA will also participate in racial equity training.

IV. Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic priorities?

The BOZA’s work supports the strategic priorities. 1. Receiving input from neighbors or others impacted by applications is important for the BOZA. The BOZA also acknowledges that not all persons are comfortable speaking in a public forum, especially when it is in opposition to a neighbor’s application. Therefore, the BOZA welcomes many forms of communication including speaking before the BOZA, submitting written communication with or without the author present at the meeting, or accepting a proxy authorized to speak for them. 2. The BOZA conducts hearings in a manner that is respectful to all in attendance. This includes managing the process and dialogue with neighbors that may be in opposition over a particular application with the goal that they will be able to continue to live as neighbors and friends, or at least with respect for one another after the process is completed. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 26

2021 Annual Report Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals

V. Variance Applications Received Since 2011: The following table details the type and amount of variance applications received and reviewed by the BOZA since 2011. ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 RESIDENTIAL Attached Garages: Interior side setback: 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Rear setback: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Side yard abutting the street setback: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detached Garages: Maximum Ground Floor Area: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Front yard of a through lot: 1 Living Space: Front setback: 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Interior side setback: 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Side abutting the street setback: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous: Deck-Interior side yard: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Open covered porch – front yard: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fence height – front yard: 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Eave – interior side yard: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Residential Variances: 2 3 2 1 4 1 2 1 1

COMMERCIAL Front setback: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 setback: 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Front yard setback for a sign: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Increase total sign area: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drive aisle width: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Floor area ratio: 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Number of required parking spaces: 1 3 1 Screening wall: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total Commercial Variances: 0 4 1 1 1 3 5 1

Total Variances: 2 7 3 2 5 4 7 2 1 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Page 27

2021 Annual Report Board or Commission: Board of Zoning Appeals

Date: October 7, 2020 Variance: Fence height Location: 1454 Texas Circle Applicant: Jeb A. Myers

St. Louis Park resident, Jeb A. Myers, requested a variance to allow a fence in the front yard to be six feet tall instead of the four-foot maximum allowed by code. The property is a corner lot, and the house faces the side yard abutting a street, not the front lot line like most houses do. The ordinance, however, identifies the front yard as the shorter of the two property lines adjacent to the streets as the front lot line, and therefore, the front yard. As illustrated, the house faces the side lot line adjacent to the street. Highlighted is the requested six-foot fence proposed to be located in the front yard. The BOZA tabled consideration of the application to the October 21, 2020 meeting so that staff could work with the applicant to find a solution. Staff reported back that the applicant withdrew the application with the understanding that the city would research and consider an amendment to the ordinance that may allow a six foot tall fence to be located on the side of the house when the side faces the front lot line. Staff prepared an amendment to the ordinance and presented it to the planning commission on March 17, 2021 in study session. The planning commission approved the direction staff was proceeding and recommended beginning the adoption process. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Discussion item: 3

Executive summary

Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide research and background information on the current zoning regulations related to housing and request further direction from the city council.

Policy consideration: Does the council wish to revise the zoning code to limit the scale of additions and new construction? This topic is eighth on the council’s list of priority discussion topics.

Summary: In 2018 city council members Rog and Miller initiated a discussion about reviewing housing regulations to limit the size of new houses and additions as a way of keeping affordable homes from being replaced with large and less affordable homes. The request stated: “In 2006 the city council authorized changes to zoning. These changes were in response to the move-up in the park initiative which was designed to encourage families to stay in St. Louis Park, including the St. Louis Park school system, by accommodating modest additions to their homes instead of seeking a larger home outside the city.” Today’s housing market in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is seeing a rapid increase in the price of single-family housing. St. Louis Park is no exception. While there are many factors that influence the housing market values, this report focuses on the concern that single- family homes are becoming less affordable as builders and private owners add on to their homes or tear down older, smaller homes and build larger ones. The city council at their meeting on July 9, 2018 agreed to consider the matter further and referred the matter to the planning commission. Staff conducted research and presented that information to city council in a written report on October 26, 2020 and to the planning commission on November 4, 2020. The planning commission discussed the issue at that study session and identified potential amendments to pursue. The commissioners’ discussion is summarized in the report and a copy of the council and planning commission minutes are attached. Staff and commissioners agreed that council input on the matter would be appropriate before beginning any formal process. The commission’s discussion is summarized in the report and meeting minutes are attached.

Next step: Staff and planning commission requests direction from the council.

Financial or budget considerations: Not 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; July 9, 2018 city council minutes; Excerpt of Nov. 4, 2020 planning commission minutes

Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, Jennifer Monson, senior planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

Discussion

Background: The city council discussed this topic in study session on July 9, 2018. In summary, there was consensus on the following points. Staff shared these points with the planning commission on November 4, 2020. 1. Multiple-family and single-family housing is becoming less affordable. While the city council expressed concerned about the affordability of both multiple-family and single- family housing, the focus of the meeting was on the zoning regulations pertaining to the size of single-family houses. 2. The city council continues to support the move-up in the park programs and providing flexibility for additions that help accommodate changing family housing needs/expectations. Nevertheless, some city council members expressed concerns about the scale of additions and new construction. Specifically, the impacts larger houses may have on adjacent properties. 3. The city should not regulate aesthetics of single-family houses. The city should focus on the scale and affordability of single-family houses and avoid regulations that encourage or require specific aesthetic elements. 4. Some councilmembers raised questions about the impacts housing is having on the climate action plan and energy efficiency goals.

Present considerations: The zoning ordinance regulations for single family houses has remained relatively constant since the first ordinance’s adoption in 1932. Two changes made over time worth noting include the changes to the ground floor area ratio (GFAR) and elimination of the floor area ratio (FAR).

GFAR is defined by code as the lot area covered by a building measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls but excluding decks and terraces and detached garages which do not exceed 15 feet in height. (Please note: The GFAR reported later in this report includes only the principal buildings. Staff was unable to include detached accessory buildings taller than 15 feet.)

FAR is defined by code as the numerical value obtained by dividing the total floor area of buildings, excluding the basement, by the lot area on which such buildings are located.

Staff’s analysis of both GFAR and FAR is attached to the report and summarized below.

GFAR and FAR analysis: Staff found that the majority of lots with higher GFAR and FAR were constructed during the city’s largest period of growth, in the 1940s to 1960s. Additionally, high GFAR and FAR is predominantly found on lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size required by code today.

The GFAR and FAR maps show that the GFAR and FAR vary widely throughout the city. The construction data also show that there are no clear patterns that newer homes have substantially higher GFAR and FAR than homes built between the 1940s and 1960s. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

Additional observations. Striking a balance between the goals of the move-up in the park initiative and size of housing is complicated when also trying to provide flexibility and meeting the expectations and desires of homebuyers in today’s market. Additionally, evaluating the actual and perceived impacts of additions and new construction is difficult.

Staff reviewed several recently built houses that have generated some complaints and/or are larger in size, GFAR or FAR. Staff noted some common characteristics: • The size of the original house was particularly small. • They added upper floors to the original house. • They had steeper roof pitches than the original house. • The houses are different architectural styles than the original house. • The first-floor elevation and surrounding grade was higher than the original house. • The floor to ceiling heights are taller in the newer houses.

The relative change in size from the old house to the new house was one explanation for a few of the houses that generated complaints. The two following examples illustrate the results of two houses that were replaced with new houses. Both represent a significant change, however, both new homes are similar in style and size to other houses found on the same neighborhood and block, and in the city. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

BEFORE AFTER

Before After

Before After

Staff presented research on several approaches and rules changes that have been considered or employed by other cities attempting to limit impacts that seemed connected to staff’s observations above. These were presented to the planning commission for discussion, but those approaches were not necessarily advocated by city staff.

Planning commission discussion: Commissioners asked several questions about the size of new construction and building additions constructed over the past few years. They expressed concerns about impacts on neighboring houses pertaining to shading and drainage. They also discussed the challenge of keeping housing affordable and encouraging additions that encourage residents to stay in St. Louis Park to raise their families and meet change needs and market demand.

The commissioners discussed how the elevation of the first floor is sometimes raised for new construction. Raising the first-floor elevation has advantages in making the basement living space more appealing and useable, including for adding bedrooms or accessory dwelling units. They also acknowledge that raising the first-floor elevation can result in a house that sits taller than its neighbors and others in the neighborhood. It also adds the possibility of drainage issues with the neighbors when the grade is raised around the house to match the higher first-floor elevation. The commissioners discussed limiting changes to the first-floor elevation to no more than one foot above the current grade as a reasonable limitation. It would allow some flexibility Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

to make a basement more appealing for livable space, including ADUs, while also minimizing the impact on the neighbors.

The commissioners did not see a need to address impacts of adding a second story to a house or replacing a single-story house with a two-story house.

Other topics such as greater setbacks, including additional setbacks on second floors, and reducing ground floor area ratio (GFAR) were discussed.

The commissioners noted that a greater setback for the second story adds additional cost to a home and provides minimal benefit. They are not recommending pursuing that option.

Commissioners expressed concerns that focusing on the impact larger structures have on neighbors may result in limiting the ability to construct move-up in the park housing, ADUs and potentially duplexes. ADUs and duplexes are a potential means for providing affordable housing options and should not be discouraged. As a result, the commissioners did not recommend pursuing changes to the GFAR or setbacks at this time. The commissioners would, however, like the city to consider a regulation establishing a maximum increase to the first-floor elevation.

Next Steps. Staff requests direction from the council, which may include to draft an ordinance establishing a maximum first-floor elevation increase for significant remodels and reconstruction. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS

MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane (arrived 6:25 p.m.), Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber (arrived 6:30 p.m.)

MEMBERS ABSENT: Courtney Erwin

STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Mara Hynek

STUDY SESSION

The study session commenced at 6:25 p.m.

1. Single-family building scale related to affordable housing

Mr. Morrison presented the report. He noted the council is looking for planning commission feedback. He stated council is concerned about scale of housing, affordability, impact on neighbors, neighborhood character, supporting move-up in the park, however they do not want to regulate style of design, such as architectural style, windows style/quality, etc. of single-family houses.

Chair Kraft asked where the two examples fall related to the ground floor ratio. Mr. Morrison presented one specific block that staff identified that included buildings adjacent to one another with low, middle and high ground floor ratio. He stated on this block that most lots are the same size, but floor area ratios of the buildings are very different. He noted there is much variation on floor ratios within the city and showed various examples of this.

Commissioner Beneke asked about ground-floor elevation and what the current standard is now. Mr. Morrison explained and stated some cities set rules on this but St. Louis Park does not have a standard currently.

Commissioner Eckholm asked if the roof height issue might be looked at with compromises in mind and that adjusts based on the first-floor elevation and floor to ceiling heights. Mr. Morrison stated houses do have a maximum height allowed in St. Louis Park and depending on how a main floor might be raised, the grade might not be changed, or it may, thereby affecting the overall height. He added there are various ways this can be worded.

Commissioner Beneke asked about adding an egress window and what options are available for that. He asked if that might be a motivation for raising the grade or first- Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

floor elevation. Mr. Morrison stated that most do not raise a house height to add an egress window, they usually excavate to provide a window well.

Commissioner Weber asked if staff discussed whether raising first-floor elevations or impacts of that change relates to climate change and more rain or flash floods. Mr. Morrison stated staff is sensitive to impacts upon the water table and drainage patterns.

Mr. Walther added staff has done a lot of modeling on this as well as part of the comprehensive plan and surface water management to reflect the latest rainfall data.

Chair Kraft asked if there is any thought of changing setbacks. She asked if there was a limit on the number of permits that can be issued and added that kind of approach seems not to encourage the Move Up in the Park program. She wondered how this might encourage limitations.

Mr. Walther stated staff could look at this.

Commissioner Beneke asked if ADU’s in the basement might be looking to increase ceiling heights and recognized this might affect the affordability of the home and ADU. Mr. Morrison confirmed that ADUs could be located in the basement and increasing the ceiling height would add cost but would also make them more desirable.

Commissioner Eckholm asked about ADU’s or duplexes and if folks want to build huge homes, people should also be able to build larger buildings to be used for duplexes or ADUs. He added this is one strategy to include climate considerations and affordable housing.

Mr. Walther stated that the comprehensive plan housing strategies does say the city will explore allowing duplexes in low density residential areas on appropriate-sized properties. He anticipates this will be in the commission’s 2021 work plan.

Commissioner Weber agreed with Commission Eckholm’s statements.

Mr. Morrison addressed Chair Kraft’s comments on heights and setbacks. He stated of the city’s current side setbacks, many existing homes already don’t meet the requirements for various reasons. A change to the setbacks would not have much impact to change the current house locations, as existing houses can remain in their current location and would become non-conforming. It is only when a house is completely torn down and a new house is built that it is required to meet side setbacks. He also explained the city’s current rules regarding the side yard setbacks for longer walls. He explained that the side walls of a house up to 40 feet in length can be placed at the minimum setback. If a house is longer, the side yard increases two inches for every foot the side of the house exceeds 40 feet in length. The code already includes some dynamic yard requirements to avoid long, flat side wall elevations.

Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Title: Zoning code size limits for houses

Mr. Walther added the city has about 10-15 teardowns per year vs Edina which has 150+ each year. He added this is a relatively small number compared to other cities and compared to the approximately 15,000 single family houses in the city.

Mr. Walther referred to the staff report and added that Edina had an upper story side yard setback requirement but eventually they eliminated it as it was difficult to administer and it added significant costs to projects because it required changing the location of load-bearing walls or installing beams to support the upper wall.

Commissioner Weber noted the tear downs in Edina and asked if St. Louis Park has any policy to discourage tear downs. Mr. Walther stated the city has no stated policy that discourages tear downs. Some practices are in place that may indicate that because we require notifications to neighbors and neighborhood meetings before the city issues a building permit. Also, our incentive programs do not fund tear downs.

Mr. Walther stated we want to encourage residents to build and stay here in St. Louis Park and provide housing for families. Staff’s understanding of this discussion is not to get into the detailed style and look of houses but rather focus on mass and scale and how that might affect housing affordability, as well. Many of the city housing programs are tailored to help low and medium-income homeowners. He asked if the commission has further recommendations for staff to explore in more depth that might better touch on these aspects.

Commissioner Eckholm asked about maximum ground-floor elevation is one to look further into as well as the side yard setback adjustments. He added he is not offended by larger homes and encouraged promoting expansions vs. teardowns.

Commissioner Beneke asked if there is a case where a larger built home might shade a home next door. Mr. Morrison stated the homes in St. Louis Park are less than 10 feet apart so shading neighboring homes is common. He added this is partially the intent with the larger setbacks for long side walls. Mr. Walther added that it would be impossible to prohibit shadowing of neighboring houses with them being built in such close proximity and especially on north-south streets and blocks.

Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Discussion item: 4

Executive summary

Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization

Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on May 10, 2021.

Policy consideration: Not applicable.

Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on May 10, 2021.

Also attached to this report is: - Study session discussion topics and timeline - Proposed topic for future study session discussion Topic Proposed by Councilmember Land acknowledgements Margaret Rog and Jake Spano

Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.

Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.

Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – May 10 Study session discussion topics and timeline Proposed topic for future study session discussion

Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Reviewed by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization

MAY 10, 2021.

6:30 p.m. Special study session - To be held via videoconference Tentative discussion items 1. Environment and sustainability commission workplan review – Building & energy (60 minutes) Annual workplan update from the environment and sustainability commission.

2. Human rights commission workplan review – Administrative services (60 minutes) Annual workplan update from the human rights commission.

3. 2022 budget overview – Administrative services (60 minutes) Staff will present a high-level overview of 2022 budget estimates in preparation for starting the budget process.

4. Future study session agenda planning – administrative services (5 minutes)

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. P2 Inclusionary housing policy – requiring family size units 6. SWLRT PLACES art temporary installment locations 7. Perspectives update Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization

Study session discussion topics and timeline Future council items Timeline for council Priority Discussion topic Comments discussion Council meetings – agenda and 1 TBD video presentation Inclusionary housing policy – 5/10/21 2 requiring family size units (written report) Public process expectations and Staff is working on the approach for 3 2nd qtr. 2021 outcomes undertaking this discussion. Community and neighborhood To be combined w/ Connect the Park 5 3rd qtr. 2021 sidewalk designations discussion. 6 Transportation commission TBD Easy access to nature, across city, 7 starting w/ low-income n’hoods / *On hold pending direction from school *On hold WHNC Access Fund district.

8 Zoning code size limits for houses In process 4/26/21

9 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is researching options. 2nd qtr. 2021

STEP has entered into purchase agreement 11 STEP discussion: facilities On hold for two adjacent properties. ESC is reviewing and will provide Vehicle idling TBD + recommendation + Semi-trailer truck parking TBD

Council items in progress Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps - Policing discussion Discussed 7/27/20, 9/29/20 & 2/22/21. TBD Creating pathways to home Discussed at 2/8/21 council meeting. 4 ownership for BIPOC individuals In process (June) Program being developed. and families Boards and commissions general Discussed 1/25/21. Revisit after the annual 10 3rd qtr. 2021 review workplan process. Report on 2/22/21. Resolution adopted - Conversion therapy ban 3/15/21. HRC to review and make TBD recommendations on ordinance. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 5

Executive summary

Title: March 2021 monthly financial report

Recommended action: No action is required.

Policy consideration: Monthly financial reporting is part of our financial management policies.

Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year.

Financial or budget considerations: Expenditures should generally be at 25% of the annual budget at the end of March. General fund expenditures are under budget through March at 21.25% of budget.

Organized recreation continues to show a temporary overage due to payment of the annual community education contribution of $187,400 to the school district in January, which is consistent with prior years. Engineering has a variance due to a lesser portion of staff hours allocated to projects in the first quarter prior to the start of the construction season.

Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.

Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures – General Fund

Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: March 2021 monthly financial report Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of March 31, 2021 2021 2021 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Unaudited Budget YTD Mar Remaining to Actual % General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes $ 26,880,004 $ 26,952,306 $ 28,393,728 $ 28,635,694 $ 29,601,811 $ - $ 29,601,811 0.00% Licenses and Permits 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 5,288,380 4,621,829 1,541,643 3,080,186 33.36% Fines & Forfeits 279,700 274,340 280,000 129,314 231,000 25,554 205,446 11.06% Intergovernmental 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 2,032,454 1,661,549 390,772 1,270,777 23.52% Charges for Services 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,583,210 2,013,834 246,288 1,767,546 12.23% Rents & Other Miscellaneous 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 1,159,728 1,499,091 402,175 1,096,916 26.83% Transfers In 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 1,982,338 2,055,017 508,004 1,547,013 24.72% Investment Earnings 180,000 523,124 210,000 455,173 200,000 200,000 0.00% Other Income 31,300 57,274 621,280 759,772 593,300 195,103 398,197 32.88% Use of Fund Balance 298,156 230,026 25,000 25,000 0.00% Total General Fund Revenues $ 39,087,692 $ 40,737,411 $ 41,694,165 $ 42,026,064 $ 42,502,431 $ 3,309,540 $ 39,192,891 7.79% General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration $ 1,837,620 $ 1,673,619 $ 1,868,599 $ 1,497,099 $ 1,842,882 $ 259,664 $ 1,583,218 14.09% Finance 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 1,182,523 1,129,591 238,142 891,449 21.08% Assessing 772,746 751,737 808,171 788,366 798,244 190,017 608,227 23.80% Human Resources 805,620 756,767 823,209 796,088 837,736 199,862 637,874 23.86% Community Development 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,536,657 1,576,323 354,404 1,221,919 22.48% Facilities Maintenance 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 1,410,607 1,349,365 284,646 1,064,719 21.09% Information Resources 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,647,366 1,683,216 377,820 1,305,396 22.45% Communications & Marketing 805,674 786,448 828,004 712,542 970,934 173,330 797,604 17.85% Total General Government $ 9,603,528 $ 9,246,612 $ 9,998,514 $ 9,571,247 $ 10,188,291 $ 2,077,886 $ 8,110,405 20.39% Public Safety: Police $ 10,335,497 $ 10,452,038 $ 10,853,821 $ 10,677,639 $ 11,307,863 $ 2,578,792 $ 8,729,071 22.81% Fire Protection 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 4,854,824 4,998,636 1,143,170 3,855,466 22.87% Building 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 2,312,616 2,571,968 551,283 2,020,685 21.43% Total Public Safety $ 17,703,910 $ 17,637,035 $ 18,591,109 $ 17,845,079 $ 18,878,467 $ 4,273,244 $ 14,605,223 22.64% Operations: Public Works Administration $ 290,753 $ 214,436 $ 273,318 $ 219,984 $ 249,256 $ 40,779 $ 208,477 16.36% Public Works Operations 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 3,170,181 3,285,820 718,612 2,567,208 21.87% Vehicle Maintenance 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 1,188,426 1,303,159 274,081 1,029,078 21.03% Engineering 570,377 609,567 551,285 784,399 523,547 158,428 365,119 30.26% Total Operations $ 5,214,847 $ 5,192,196 $ 5,435,396 $ 5,362,990 $ 5,361,782 $ 1,191,899 $ 4,169,883 22.23% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 1,368,426 1,639,358 445,190 1,194,168 27.16% Recreation Center 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,874,992 2,082,697 360,528 1,722,169 17.31% Park Maintenance 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,804,905 1,916,643 379,106 1,537,537 19.78% Westwood Nature Center 643,750 612,266 748,683 606,100 736,515 142,100 594,415 19.29% Natural Resources 484,784 429,409 504,143 433,362 496,497 31,620 464,877 6.37% Total Parks and Recreation $ 6,491,057 $ 6,401,977 $ 6,857,585 $ 6,087,785 $ 6,871,710 $ 1,358,544 $ 5,513,166 19.77% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion $ - $ 4,592 $ 314,077 $ 272,994 $ 341,293 $ 71,497 $ 269,796 20.95% Sustainability 26,283 497,484 245,461 432,043 64,795 367,248 15.00% Transfers Out 300,000 428,845 0.00% Contingency and Other 74,350 121,245 144,860 0.00% Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental $ 74,350 $ 452,119 $ 811,561 $ 663,314 $ 1,202,181 $ 136,292 $ 637,044 11.34% Total General Fund Expenditures $ 39,087,692 $ 38,929,940 $ 41,694,165 $ 39,530,415 $ 42,502,431 $ 9,037,866 $ 33,035,720 21.26% Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 6

Executive summary

Title: First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)

Recommended action: No action required at this time.

Policy consideration: Reporting on investments quarterly is part of our financial management policies.

Summary: The quarterly investment report provides an overview of the City’s investment portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity and yield.

Financial or budget considerations: The total portfolio value at March 31, 2021 is $62.8 million compared to $81.6 million at the end of 2020. This decrease is normal in the first quarter due to payment of the February 1 debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments from the December tax settlement. Approximately $33.3 million of the portfolio is invested in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds and municipal debt securities. The remaining $29.5 million is held in money market accounts for bond projects and operating cash flow needs between property tax settlements. The overall yield to maturity increased to .95% from .73% the prior quarter. Interest rates on money markets remain near zero and 4 year Treasury securities purchased during the quarter had rates to maturity of between .32% and .58%.

Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.

Supporting documents: Discussion Investment portfolio summary

Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)

Discussion Background: The city’s investment portfolio is focused on cash flow needs and investment in longer term securities in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s investment policy objectives of: 1) preservation of capital; 2) liquidity; and 3) return on investment.

Present considerations: The portfolio value decreased by approximately $18.8 million in the first quarter to $62.8 at March 31, 2021 from $81.6 million at December 31, 2020. A large amount of cash was needed in the first quarter for the February 1 debt service and pay as you go TIF note payments in addition to the normal cashflow requirements for payroll and operations which decreased money market balances.

The overall yield to maturity increased to .95% from .73% at the end of 2020. This is the combined yield including both the funds held in money market accounts and long-term investments, so the increase is attributable primarily to the spend down of cash in the lower yielding money market accounts. Interest rates on money markets are near zero. The overall yield remains higher than the two-year Treasury of .16% on March 31, 2021, which is a typical benchmark used by cities for yield comparison of their overall portfolio, because some of the older securities in the portfolio have higher yields to maturity.

There was $29.5 million in money market accounts at the end of March, approximately half of which is bond proceeds for construction and utility projects. The remaining $33.3 million of the portfolio is invested in longer term securities including municipal bonds ($1.3 mil), Federal agency bonds ($6.4 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes ($25.6 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by states, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank and Fannie Mae.

One agency bond matured during the quarter. The proceeds from the maturity were reinvested along with approximately $5 million of money market cash. The Treasury securities that were purchased have rates to maturity ranging from .32% to .58% and maturity dates between 12/31/2024 and 6/30/2025.

This table summarizes the City’s portfolio at March 31, 2021: 12/31/20 3/31/21 12/31/20 3/31/21 <1 Year 76% 60% Money Markets/Cash $53,362,125 $29,538,388 1-2 Years 11% 15% Commercial Paper $0 $0 2-3 Years 4% 6% Certificates of Deposit $0 $0 3-4 Years 7% 12% Municipal Debt $1,344,538 $1,336,321 >4 Years 2% 7% Agencies/Treasuries $26,909,467 $31,911,020

Next steps: None at this time. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: First quarter investment report (January – March 2021)

City of St. Louis Park Investment Portfolio Summary March 31, 2021 Maturity Yield To Market Value at Estimated Avg Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Date Maturity Par Value 3/31/2021 Annual Income 4M Liquid Asset Money Market 0.02% 1,175,135 1,175,135 235 4M Plus Money Market 0.05% 10,001,272 10,001,272 5,001 UBS Institutional Money Market 0.01% 2,027,731 2,027,731 203 UBS Institutional Money Market (bond proceeds) 0.01% 16,334,250 16,334,250 1,633 29,538,388

PFM Muni Debt - California State Txble GO Bonds 13063DGA0 04/01/2021 2.80% 450,000 450,000 12,600 PFM Muni Debt - Minnesota State Txble GO Bonds 60412ASE4 08/01/2022 1.76% 200,000 207,532 3,520 PFM Muni Debt - San Jose CA Txbl GO Bonds 798135H51 09/01/2023 2.13% 650,000 678,789 13,845 1,336,321

PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U27 04/13/2021 2.55% 500,000 500,410 12,750 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,603,440 32,320 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U35 06/22/2021 2.76% 700,000 704,242 19,320 PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 752,325 9,375 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 650,000 655,233 11,245 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,159,258 21,275 PFM FHLB 3130AF5B9 10/12/2021 3.02% 750,000 761,700 22,650 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 700,000 704,865 12,040 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 578,996 9,430 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.85% 200,000 201,390 3,700 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0U92 01/11/2022 2.65% 400,000 407,924 10,600 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.12% 500,000 509,530 10,600 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.18% 800,000 815,248 17,440 PFM US Treasury Note 912828X47 04/30/2022 2.69% 1,300,000 1,324,778 34,970 PFM US Treasury Note 912828TJ9 08/15/2022 2.76% 430,000 438,785 11,868 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.78% 925,000 956,728 25,715 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.51% 2,550,000 2,637,465 64,005 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N30 12/31/2022 2.55% 1,675,000 1,732,453 42,713 PFM FHLB 3130AJ7E3 02/17/2023 1.44% 620,000 633,913 8,928 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 2.53% 1,000,000 1,030,700 25,300 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R69 05/31/2023 1.83% 350,000 360,745 6,405 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.55% 75,000 77,634 1,163 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T91 10/31/2023 1.48% 450,000 465,804 6,660 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0V34 02/05/2024 2.58% 475,000 504,517 12,255 PFM FHLB 3130AFW94 02/13/2024 2.58% 500,000 531,645 12,900 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.55% 600,000 630,375 9,300 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,600,000 1,680,659 26,560 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 0.85% 260,000 273,122 2,210 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.36% 350,000 367,665 4,760 PFM US Treasury Note 912828XX3 06/30/2024 1.66% 1,150,000 1,208,041 19,090 PFM FHLB 3130AGWK7 08/15/2024 1.55% 175,000 181,214 2,713 PFM US Treasury Note 912828YY0 12/31/2024 0.32% 1,900,000 1,981,339 6,080 PFM Fannie Mae 3135G0X24 01/07/2025 1.69% 650,000 674,934 10,985 PFM Freddie Mac 3137EAEP0 02/12/2025 1.52% 750,000 775,035 11,400 PFM US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.36% 150,000 146,907 540 PFM US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.58% 725,000 710,051 4,205 PFM US Treasury Note 912828ZW3 06/30/2025 0.39% 3,300,000 3,231,954 12,870 31,911,020

GRAND TOTAL 62,785,729 593,375

Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.95% Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 7

Executive summary

Title: Redistricting update

Recommended action: None. The purpose of the report is to provide council with an update on the statewide redistricting process.

Policy consideration: Does the strategy/process outlined related to redistricting meet the council’s expectations? Does the council need any additional information at this time?

Summary: Redistricting is the process of redrawing boundaries of election districts to ensure that the people of each district are equally represented. This process is done following the decennial census to account for population shifts. In Minnesota, the legislature is responsible for drawing boundaries related to the state’s congressional, senate, house, and Metropolitan Council districts. Local governments are responsible for redistricting other election districts. County boards are responsible for redistricting county commissioner districts. School boards are responsible for redistricting board member districts. City councils are responsible for redistricting city wards and precinct boundaries.

Due to COVID-19, the delivery of census data to states has been significantly delayed. Currently, it is expected that data will not be received until late September 2021. The delay in receipt of the data by the legislature impacts the redistricting process at every level of government. The city cannot redistrict wards before the state redistricting plan is adopted. Because the technical process of redistricting is based solely on census data, the timelines related to this process have been altered. Exact dates and timelines have not been released by the state since the delay in census data was announced. It is anticipated that most of the technical work will take place in 2022 on a condensed timeline. Elections staff continue to closely monitor information and will be prepared to lead council through this process.

Elections staff is currently waiting for additional legal guidance from the county and the state regarding whether the city will need to take formal action to reestablish existing ward and precinct boundaries prior to the 2021 election. It appears that statute only requires cities of the first class (more than 100,000 in population) to complete this prior to the 2021 election, however we are awaiting final determination on this given the delay at the state level. Because we will not have the data required to change any existing boundaries, we anticipate that the current ward and precinct boundaries will remain in effect for the 2021 election. The city would then move forward with the redistricting process in 2022.

Financial or budget considerations: None

Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement.

Supporting documents: Discussion

Prepared by: Michael Sund, elections specialist Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Reviewed by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Redistricting update

Discussion

What is the redistricting authority of the city council? • The city charter requires the council to redetermine ward boundaries after each decennial census of the United States; and that the four ward boundaries shall be adopted by ordinance based on findings of the council that the wards are of as near equal size in both population and area as practicable. • State statute also requires cities to establish precinct boundaries. This is done by resolution.

What will be included in the redistricting process? • Administratively, this process will be coordinated by elections staff with assistance from Geographic Information System (GIS). We have developed a plan for data acquisition and the corresponding GIS work that will need to occur to review population data and census block boundaries and identify any necessary or suggested boundary adjustments for presentation to the council. Elections staff will develop an exact timeline for council to complete this process once more definitive information is known regarding the state’s timeline. • Additionally, elections staff plans to engage in a large scale public process to solicit and collect both qualitative and quantitative data from the community that will help inform discussions related to how we plan to meet the needs of St. Louis Park voters operationally over the course of the next 10 years. This will include information we already know about voting trends (when, where, how people vote) and overall participation, as well as information we want to learn more about and measure over time such as how people feel about voting in St. Louis Park, how they engage in elections, and barriers to participation.

Strategy for redistricting process • Throughout the redistricting process elections staff is taking into consideration the council’s strategic priorities and the opportunity for a public engagement.

Race equity and inclusion: The redrawing of political boundaries can have long term consequences on communities of color and interest within any jurisdiction. Historically, political boundaries have been used to intentionally disenfranchise or support certain groups of voters. In recognition of this fact we will use census data and qualitative analysis in the information presented to council for approval of boundaries. This will include supporting documentation and a race equity analysis of the boundary options. Outreach and community engagement: Our work over the past two years to establish relationships within the community will continue with this process. We have flexible plans in place that will allow us to complete this work through meaningful interactions and conversations with community members and organizations regardless of how the circumstances of the pandemic may change over time. This outreach effort will include but is not limited to local institutions, neighborhood organizations, senior living communities, multi-family homes, students (future voters), and traditionally underrepresented populations. We have already started the process of informing and updating the community through regular communications regarding the redistricting process. Our goal is to solicit feedback from those impacted by changes to boundaries or Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Redistricting update

polling locations so you can fully understand the potential impacts and/or unintended consequences of the boundary options that will be presented. This strategy will largely mimic the public process used by other divisions when a specific project affects a specific group of residents. Targeted mailings, online public forums, in person events, and interactive mapping are a few examples of the methods we will use to engage residents and allow people to provide input on the boundary changes that affect them and how it impacts their participation in and overall engagement with elections.

Preliminary research: Several factors can be considered in the drawing of ward boundaries. Generally, a district best serves voters when it has characteristics like being compact (the shortest possible boundary), does not cross major physical barriers like rivers and railways, and one that is logical to the average person residing in it. Additional factors we will consider include accessibility of walking, biking, public transit, and car. Each precinct will be analyzed by factoring in the time it would take the average resident to reach their polling location by each modality. This will be presented as a chronological measurement that will be compared to standards developed in peer reviewed research on the potential impacts of a given length of a trip to the polling place.1

Two long term factors affecting this process in many communities nationally are the number and quality of public spaces that can serve as a polling location and the increased use of early in person voting to cast a ballot prior to Election Day. When a voter casts a ballot in person prior to Election Day they go to one central location, in our case city hall, and the distance to that location is a fixed factor regardless of how their individual precinct is drawn.

Preliminary staff analysis: • Number of polling locations – Currently there are 16 precincts in St. Louis Park. In the past the city has maintained different numbers of precincts, however, there have been 16 (four precincts per ward) since 2010. Each ward is required to contain roughly the same number of people. A specific precinct population can be any size in which elections can be administered efficiently. The city is required to provide a polling location for each precinct. All the required Election Day equipment and supplies are maintained, prepared, and allocated for each precinct. This includes ballot counters, assistive voting devices, electronic pollbooks, voting booths, signage, ballots, required forms/envelopes and supplies for election workers. To serve voters these locations must be accessible 2, open to the public, able to be secured, have ample parking, and, most importantly, willing, and available for use as a polling location. Considerations to alter the number of precincts should be carefully considered with all these factors in mind in addition to the ease of use by voters within the precinct. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find facilities that meet the necessary criteria and are willing to be used as a polling location. Concerns regarding safety and security at

1 Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, and Maxwell Palmer. "Driving Turnout: The Effect of Car Ownership on Electoral Participation." HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP20-032, October 2020. 2 “Disability and Voting Accessibility in the 2020 Elections” https://www.eac.gov/election- officials/us-election-assistance-commission-study-disability-and-voting-accessibility-2020 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Title: Redistricting update

facilities with concurrent uses have increased as elections have become more frequent, contentious, and divisive events. The availability of viable facilities is a concern for future elections.

• Public Engagement Process – Because the final boundaries must be based on census data, changes to boundaries could be relatively minor. As a fully built out city the need to rebalance precincts to ensure efficient delivery of services may require only moderate adjustments to precinct boundaries. While it is now technically possibly to create computer generated maps which exactly divide populations, they tend to ignore walkability and livability factors that the average voter would quickly recognize. For this reason, while we will use technology to assist in the creation of maps, we also intend to use this event as a method of public outreach on our elections process. Much like a series of small area plans any adjustments to boundaries will be discussed with the people they will affect. We are unsure of the level of engagement and interest we will experience from residents in this process, however we will seek input through a variety of outlets and ensure that we are providing ample opportunity for residents to engage and provide input.

• Council involvement – Over the course of the summer, elections staff will provide the council with updates and information on the most critical factors that should be considered when making decisions related to redistricting. The idea is to prepare council and provide information that will allow for our qualitative process and analysis to be as near to completion as possible upon receipt of census data. In this way we will be able to enter data and quickly generate maps with boundary options based on your direction and understanding from prior meetings. This sort of ‘plug and play’ approach will allow us to complete the process within statutory timelines and recognize that we have a local election to administer in 2021.

Conclusions/goals: • To prepare council and engage residents within the framework of the city’s strategic priorities on the impacts and outcomes of redistricting. • To use census data to create a ward and precinct map which respects the broadest possible group of concerns related to voter participation and engagement and that will simultaneously allow the city to effectively and efficiently serve voters over the next ten years. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 8

Executive summary

Title: Sustainability division update for Q2 2021

Recommended action: No action is required at this time.

Policy consideration: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have.

Summary: This report is to provide a quarterly update to council with a high-level overview of the projects and programs that the division has completed, is currently working on, and is planning.

• Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance o Data collection/entry period underway for 2020 energy data (due June 1) • Solar Sundown o Administering program; 37% toward 1 MW goal (8 residential and 4 commercial) • Climate Champions o Planning launch with Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Energy Smart program o Executing communications plan • Green Building Policy (in collaboration with Community Development) o Finalizing draft of suggested policy changes for council consideration • Energy Assistance o Created matrix of energy assistance programs to better identify program gaps for future policy work, opportunities for partnership • Electric vehicles o Serving on Technical Advisory Committee that will provide input on two electric vehicle planning studies underway • GreenStep Cities o Compiled and submitted annual inventory to reach Step 5 (June notification) • Anti-idling research o Assisting Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) with research on anti-idling ordinances, policies, and campaigns • Earth Day/Month o Collaborated with ESC to create videos and social media posts to promote Earth Month • City facilities o Assisting with scoping energy saving/generating projects at Rec Center Financial or budget considerations: None at this time

Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.

Supporting documents: None

Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 9

Executive summary

Title: Freight rail switching wye

Recommended action: No action necessary.

Policy consideration: There is no policy consideration at this time. The report is provided for information purposes.

Summary: The freight switching wye is located in the Oxford Industrial Park area north of Methodist Hospital east of Louisiana Avenue. The wye facilitates movements for trains moving between the east-west rail line and the north-south rail line. The switching wye is operational; however, the north leg will be removed as a part of SWLRT as a new bridge connection is being constructed. At present, there is minimal switching activity occurring on the wye.

The new freight bridge being constructed as part of the SWLRT will connect the two lines thus facilitating the movement between the lines and eliminating the many movements currently required for the freight switching.

There is one freight customer that is presently served by the southern leg of the wye located at the eastern end of the line. This business operation will not be affected by the removal of the north leg of the wye and the construction of the new freight rail bridge.

Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.

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

Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, principal planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: Freight rail switching wye

Discussion Background: In 2010-11 when the SWLRT Green Line Extension was being engineered and planned, it became apparent that a portion of the CP Freight rail used to switch trains between two rail lines in St. Louis Park would need to be re-routed. The freight switching wye is located to the south of the Louisiana SWLRT Station and facilitates trains moving between the east- west rail line and the north-south rail line east of Louisiana Avenue. The freight lines are at different elevations and require switching in the Oxford Industrial Park to move from one line to the other. The switching wye is still in place and operational, however there is minimal switching activity.

Switching operation: A new freight bridge is being built with the new SWLRT line to provide better train movements between lines and accommodate the light rail. Currently, to switch from the east-west rail to the north-south rail line, trains stop east of Wooddale Avenue and unhitch several cars at a time from the full train (1 on drawing below) and are pushed or pulled on the switching track (2) to the west of Louisiana (3). They are then pushed or pulled back east on the south part of the wye (4) to get on to the north-south track (5). This is a very cumbersome, inefficient, time-consuming, and noisy means of switching rail lines.

The north portion of the wye has been acquired for the SWLRT project and will be removed when the new freight bridge is built and operational. The south spur of the wye will remain and serves one building to the west at 7101 Oxford Street. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Title: Freight rail switching wye

New bridge to replace switching movements: To accommodate the LRT station and both freight and light rail movement, the SWLRT Project Office (SPO) purchased the northern half of the wye property and is constructing a bridge for the freight trains to connect directly to the north-south line. When trains arrive on the north-south line, they will be able to go either direction as shown below.

The new bridge will provide a smooth, sweeping movement for the freight rail to meet with the north-south line, eliminate both traffic blocking issues at Wooddale, and the noise of switching train cars.

When the freight bridge becomes operational, the north switching wye tracks and operations will be removed. LRT trains will travel underneath the new freight bridge and the existing north- south freight bridge.

New freight bridge movement

Depiction of new freight bridge

Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 9) Page 4 Title: Freight rail switching wye

South spur: The southern half of the freight rail wye will not be removed as a part of the SWLRT project. It exclusively serves the Robert B. Hill water treatment business at the west end of the spur. The company receives a train shipment approximately once a week. However, due to flooding in the area and needed stormwater management, the city and watershed district may pursue acquisition of the building and relocation of the business in the future, which would likely result in the southern spur being removed, as well.

South spur of wye

Robert B. Hill Company Building

Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 10

Executive summary

Title: Development update

Recommended action: None. This report is for information purposes.

Policy consideration: None

Summary: The attached quarterly report summarizes the status of various development projects occurring in the city. Its purpose is to apprise council/EDA members of the progress being made on various development projects, anticipated construction commencement and completion dates as well as future required actions.

Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.

Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.

Supporting documents: Discussion (Any documents hyperlinked in this report are available in the community development department for review.)

Prepared by: Economic development and planning staff Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager, EDA executive director Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Title: Development update

Discussion

Present considerations: The following is a status update on major development projects occurring within the city. A developments projects map and description of all development projects may be found on the city’s web site.

Proposed developments

• Aldersgate Methodist Church (3801 Wooddale Ave. S.): Staff has met with a developer interested in redeveloping the site. No formal applications have been submitted at this time.

• Beltline Boulevard station site (4601 and 4725 State Hwy. 7): Developer Sherman Associates is meeting regularly with staff to discuss site and building plans, project components, economics, and financial assistance, as well as infrastructure coordination with city, county and SWLRT agencies. The developer anticipates submitting planning applications in fourth quarter 2021 or early 2022. In the meantime, the developer will request that its’ Preliminary Development Agreement with the EDA be extended until next year to provide time to secure all necessary formal approvals. Such a request is tentatively scheduled for consideration June 21, 2021. This development also requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). City council will be requested to issue a resolution allowing the publication of the EAW in June 2021.

• Beltline South (3440 Beltline Blvd.): Opus Group has submitted planning and TIF applications for a five-story, 250-unit mixed-use development with approximately 7,700 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The developer will continue working with staff on these applications. Formal consideration of the planning applications is likely to occur at the end of May/ early June followed by city council consideration.

• Minnetonka Blvd redevelopment (5707 – 5639 Minnetonka Blvd.): Staff is working with prospective developer GMHC (Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation) and the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) on site and building plans, project components and economics, alley relocation, as well as necessary financial assistance needed to bring the six to eight-unit, affordable home-ownership development to fruition. It is anticipated that project plans could be presented to council by fourth quarter 2021.

• Nordic Ware Building 9 expansion (5005 County Road 25): The second reading of the easement vacation ordinance and zoning text amendment ordinance was on the April 19, 2021 consent agenda. Once approved, the project team will apply for building permits with the intention of starting construction spring 2021.

• Park Place Plaza addition (5699 16th St. W.): Bianco Properties is requesting an amendment to the Park Place Plaza PUD to construct a 7,000 square foot retail building. The application is scheduled for a public hearing before the planning commission on May 5. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Title: Development update

• Rise on 7 (8115 State Hwy. 7): Developer Common Bond recently submitted planning and TIF applications. It will continue working with staff on these applications. Formal consideration of the applications is likely to occur June 2021. Common Bond also held a neighborhood meeting recently to share its plans with the surrounding residents and businesses.

• SLP Living (formerly known as Platia Place, 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd.): Mortenson Construction was seeking greater TIF assistance than EDA staff determined was necessary to provide a reasonable rate of return and bring the project to fruition. Mortenson therefore chose not to proceed with this project and withdrew its planning applications. Property owner, Bill Stoddard, is seeking a new development partner for the site.

• Wooddale Station redevelopment site (5950 W. 36th St.) Co-developers Saturday Properties and Anderson Companies are meeting regularly with staff to discuss site and building plans, project components, economics, and financial assistance as well as coordination with city and SWLRT infrastructure. The developers anticipate submitting formal applications first or second quarter 2022. The developers are proceeding with negotiations to acquire the adjacent property to the east, per their submitted proposal. The city is in the process of rezoning the site from a PUD to MX-1, to remove all of the zoning requirements for a previously proposed development. This action will be coming to city council in June 2021.

Approved developments

• Arlington Row — East & West (7705 Wayzata Blvd. and 7905 Wayzata Blvd.): Melrose Company received planning approvals to develop two properties along the south side of Wayzata Blvd. Development of both sites has incurred delays. Construction commencement is indefinite at this time.

• Best Cleaners (8105 Minnetonka Blvd.): Council voted to deny an additional time extension for the property owner to act on the approved planning applications. The applicant may reapply for the CUP and variance and amend their plans to meet current zoning requirements if they so choose.

• Bremer Bank (7924 State Hwy. 7): Council approved a time extension for developer, Frauenshuh, to act on the conditional use permit. The deadline to act on the application has been extended to June 15, 2022.

• Luxe Residential (5235 Wayzata Blvd./former Olive Garden site): This last apartment project in the Central Park West development received all necessary planning approvals. It has subsequently incurred some delays and construction commencement is undetermined at this time.

• Parkway Residences (West 31st St. between Inglewood Ave. and Glenhurst Ave.): Construction of Phase I (Parkway Place) is currently underway and is expected to be Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10) Page 4 Title: Development update

completed by April 30, 2022. Phase II started construction mid-April 2021, and Phase III is expected to commence by April 30, 2022.

• Texa-Tonka Apartments (7916 Minnetonka Blvd. and 2939 to 2901 Texas Ave.): Paster Properties received all necessary planning and TIF approvals for this development. In the coming months the developer expects to close on its project financing and property acquisition. Construction is required to begin by October 31, 2021 and be substantially completed by October 31, 2023.

• Union Park Flats (Union Congregational Church) (3700 Alabama Ave.): Project received all necessary planning approvals in July 2020. Developer PPL is currently assembling funding for the project. Once completed, PPL will finalize its request to the EDA for TIF assistance and establishment of a housing TIF district. It will then proceed with the final architectural work needed for building permits. Construction is estimated to start in fall 2022.

Under construction/recently completed

• 10 West End (1601 Utica Ave. S.) Office building completed, and tenants are actively being secured. Thus far, two tenants, HDR and CarVal, have signed long term leases in the building. Future adjacent office building, 20 West End, is expected to commence construction on September 30, 2024 pending lease commitments from prospective anchor tenants.

• Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center (4450 Excelsior Blvd.): Headquarter office building completed in summer 2020 and commercial tenants have been secured. Hazelwood Food & Drink restaurant opened in April 2021.

• The Quentin (4900 Cedar Lake Rd.): The project is well under construction and on schedule to be completed by December 31, 2021, as required under the redevelopment contract.

• The Elmwood (5605 36th St. W.): Development received its Temporary Occupancy Permit in March and has been actively leasing up. The project expects to receive its final certificate of occupancy by summer 2021. One commercial tenant, Excelsior & Grand Chiropractic, has been secured and the remaining commercial space is likely to be occupied by the developer’s business offices

• Nordic Ware (5005 State Hwy. 7): Construction on the manufacturing and warehouse expansion (Building 8) is underway at the Nordic Ware campus and is expected to be complete by fall 2021.

• Via Sol (PLACE) (5855 State Hwy. 7): Construction on the apartment building and commercial space has been halted, presumably due to financial issues. Staff has reached out to the development team to request a status update and determination as to when construction may resume. Up until this week, construction on the apartment building and commercial space had been proceeding and apartment preleasing was Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 10) Page 5 Title: Development update

occurring in anticipation of a summer opening. Construction on the adjacent E- Generation building has not yet begun but was anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2021, per the redevelopment agreement. City Council will be asked to amend the PLACE PUD in June 2021 to remove all language pertaining to the Wooddale Station Site.

• XChange Medical Office (6111 Wayzata Blvd.): Davis Group’s three-story, Class A, medical office development fronting I-394 is well underway and is expected to be completed by fall 2021. Ear Nose & Throat Specialty Care (ENTSC) and Surgical Care Affiliates (SCA) will anchor the 78,996 -square foot medical office building.

Next steps: Please contact economic development or planning staff with any questions. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: April 26, 2021 Written report: 11

Executive summary

Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard

Recommended action: Please provide staff with feedback on the proposed redevelopment.

Policy consideration: • Is the city council generally supportive of the proposed redevelopment concept? • Is the city council willing to consider a rezoning to a planned unit development? • Is the EDA willing to consider providing tax increment financing for this project?

Summary: Opus Group has a purchase agreement for 3440 Beltline Boulevard. The developer is looking to redevelop the site and construct a five story, 250-unit mixed-use building with 7,463 square feet of commercial space and six live/work units on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard. Due to high ground water and floodplain, parking will be provided in a three-story above ground ramp and in a 27-stall surface parking lot. The housing would be mixed income with 10% of the units affordable at 50% area median income (AMI), meeting the city’s inclusionary housing policy requirements. Several three-bedroom units are included in the proposal to assist in city council’s goals for family-sized housing.

The development would be subject to the city’s green building policy. In addition, photovoltaic panels are proposed on the building’s roof and the developer is exploring LEED and B3 options for their sustainability program.

The developer has submitted applications for a preliminary and final plat, a preliminary and final planned unit development, and an easement vacation. A traffic study is underway. The developer will hold a neighborhood meeting in May, and planning commission will hold a public hearing at the end of May/early June.

Financial or budget considerations: The developer indicates there are extraordinary costs associated with the proposed redevelopment site and building which preclude the project from achieving a market rate of return. Consequently, the developer intends to apply for tax increment financing assistance through the establishment of a redevelopment TIF district.

Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.

Supporting documents: Discussion Development concept plans (Any documents hyperlinked in the report are available in the community development department for review.)

Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, senior planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11) Page 2 Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard

Discussion Site information: The proposed redevelopment site is located at 3440 Beltline Boulevard, on the west side of Beltline Boulevard, south of Park Glen Road and north of 35th Street West. The site is in the Wolfe Park neighborhood.

Site area: 3.49 acres

Current uses: Business park uses – including Kenwood Gymnastics

2040 Comprehensive Plan: TOD – transit-oriented development

Current zoning: MX-1 - vertical mixed use

Proposed zoning: PUD - planned unit development

Surrounding land uses: North: Business Park uses East: Bass Lake Preserve West: Business Park uses – including Steel Toe Brewery South: Business Park uses – Comcast offices and fitness studios Site Map: Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11) Page 3 Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard

Background: This site has long been held by the McCain family. During their ownership tenure, this area has undergone many changes from heavy industrial, to a business park, and then in 2019 this site’s land use was reguided to transit-oriented development and the site was rezoned to MX 1 vertical mixed-use. The McCain family has anticipated these changes, and all tenant’s leases expire on or before June 30, 2021.

The McCain family has decided to sell this property and has entered into purchase agreement with Opus Group who wishes to redevelop the site into a mixed-use, mixed-income, transit- oriented development, which achieves the city’s goals and visions for the site based on previous plans for the area.

In 2012, the city created the Beltline Station area framework and design guidelines which identified Beltline Boulevard as a transit-oriented street, since it is the primary north-south link for all transportation to the Beltline LRT Station. The plan states that development along Beltline Boulevard should “…focus on higher density buildings that bring more people, residents and employees, to live and work within walking distance of the Beltline Transit Station. Taller buildings for office, residential, and mixed use (residential or office above retail) are appropriate along Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa. All buildings on properties adjacent to Beltline Boulevard should be street-oriented with minimal building setbacks, entry doors and windows along the street.”

Present considerations: Opus Group has a purchase agreement for 3440 Beltline Boulevard. The developer proposes to redevelop the site and construct a five story, 250-unit mixed-use building with 7,463 square feet of commercial space. Due to high ground water and floodplain, parking will be provided in a three-story above ground ramp and in a small surface parking lot. The plans provide a mixed of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units, including six live/work units located on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard.

The developer requests the city rezone the site from MX-1 vertical mixed use, which allows up to 75 units per acre, to a PUD planned unit development. A rezoning to a PUD would allow the site to build the higher density allowed in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan transit-oriented development land use category, which allows up to 125 units per acre.

The developer utilized the Beltline Station Area framework and design guidelines when preparing their development proposal.

Green building policy: The development will be required to meet the city’s green building policy. The developer proposes a photovoltaic array on the building’s roof and will be installing electric vehicle charging stations. The developer is exploring LEED and B3 options for their sustainability program, which may include the following: LED lighting, low VOC materials, construction waste recycling, higher efficiency HVAC systems, low flow fixtures, and recycled content materials. In addition, the site is in close proximity to the southwest light rail Beltline Boulevard station.

Inclusionary housing: The developer must meet the city’s inclusionary housing policy because of their requests for a planned unit development and tax increment financing. The developer proposes 10 percent of the units be affordable to households at 50 percent area median Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11) Page 4 Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard income (AMI), which meets the city’s inclusionary housing policy requirements. Per the Metropolitan Council, 50 percent AMI for a family of four is $51,700. Monthly rental rates at 50 percent AMI are presently $970 for a one-bedroom unit and $1,163 for a two-bedroom unit.

Next steps: The developer applied for preliminary and final plat, preliminary and final planned unit development, an easement vacation and tax increment financing. The developer will hold a neighborhood meeting in May. The planning commission will hold a public hearing at the end of May or early June. The applications will then be brought to the city council and EDA for consideration.

The applicant is seeking to close on the property and begin construction by the end of the year. The anticipated completion date is July 2023. Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11) Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard Page 5

Opus AE Group, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110 952-656-4444

Opus Design Build, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West 20' - 0" - 20' Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110 952-656-4444

AUTO MECH. ENTRY 18' - 0" - 18' CONSULTANT 1 BR+ 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR

BIKE ROOM UP 24' - 0" - 24'

1 BR STOR.

1 BR+ 1 BR 18' - 0" - 18' PROJECT

SLOPE UP SLOPE 1 BR 3440 Beltline

ST Boulevard

27 OUTDOOR SPACES

18' - 0" 24' - 0" 190' - 0" 24' - 0"

1 BR TERRACES AT LEVEL 1 PROJECT ADDRESS 1 BR St. Louis Park, MN MOVE-IN/LOADING 6' - 0"

PROJECT NUMBER 6' - 0" 31815000 ELEC 30' - 0" 1 BR ELEV ELEV EASEMENT LOBBY LOBBY FUTURE EV CHARGING STALLS (QTY 10) EV CHARGING STALLS (QTY 10) ISSUE RECORD ONE WAY 2021-04-19 PUD Submittal 1 6' - 0" - 6' HC MAIL/PKG E/D

TRASH E/D 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR ST

30' - 0" - 30' PATIO

20' - 0" LOBBY/ LEASING RETAIL

YOGA ENHANCED PAVING ENHANCED

BIKE PARKING 2 BR

FLUSH CURB EXTERIOR AMENITY WTR 60' - 6" - 60' ROOM 20' - 0" - 20' ST BIKE PARKING BIKE FITNESS

M W

LEASING ST TERRACES & GARDEN WALL AT L-1

2 BR 2 BR 2 BR 2 BR CLUB LIVING DATE 24' - 0" - 24' 04/19/21 882 E / D PROJECT MANAGER

RETAIL T. Callahan ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE: DRAWN BY 6' - 0" - 6' 1'-0" FROM EDGE OF TRAIL T. Grothe ST CHECKED BY

RAMP D. Newins ASSUMED 4'-0" L/W L/W L/W L/W L/W L/W ST ST EASEMENT LINE 34' - 0" - 34' REGISTRATION

PATIO GATED AMENITY ENTRY/EXIT

RETAIL PATIO L/W PATIO AND AND ENTRY ENTRY (TYP)

SHEET TITLE Concept Level 1 4/19/2021 4:20:18 PM 4:20:18 4/19/2021 SHEET NUMBER A.01

PLOT PLOT DATE: 0' 25' 50' 100' Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11) Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard Page 6 Study session meeting of April 26, 2021 (Item No. 11) Title: Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard Page 7

Opus AE Group, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110 952-656-4444

Opus Design Build, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343-0110 952-656-4444

CONSULTANT

View of West Side

Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.

PROJECT 3440 Beltline Boulevard

PROJECT ADDRESS St. Louis Park, MN

PROJECT NUMBER 31815000

ISSUE RECORD

2021-04-19 PUD Submittal 1

View Toward the North

Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.

DATE 04/19/21 PROJECT MANAGER T. Callahan DRAWN BY T. Grothe CHECKED BY View of South Side D. Newins

Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details.

REGISTRATION

SHEET TITLE Project Images 4/19/2021 4:20:30 PM 4:20:30 4/19/2021 SHEET NUMBER

View of North Side

Conceptual Imagery For Illustrative Purposes Only. Refer to Architectural, Civil and Landscape Drawings for Details. A.09 PLOT PLOT DATE: