HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/12/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
DECEMBER 8, 2014
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 15, 2014 and January 12,
2015
2. 6:35 p.m. Southwest LRT Update
8:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
3. Proposed Business Terms of 2nd Amendment to West End Redevelopment Contract
4. Comcast Franchise Transfer
5. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 8, 2014
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 15, 2014 and January 12, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the Special Study Session scheduled for December 15, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on January 12, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the Special Study Session scheduled for December 15, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on January 12, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 15, 2014
and January 12, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 15, 2014 and January 12, 2015
Special Study Session, December 15, 2014 – Immediately following City Council Meeting
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Comcast Franchise Transfer – Information Resources (45 minutes)
Attorney Brian Grogan and city staff will provide an update to the Council and members of
the city’s Telecommunications Commission regarding the proposed Cable TV Franchise
transfer between Comcast and Midwest Cable. The update will include information about the
progress made evaluating the proposed transfer and the process to approve or deny the
transfer in early January.
Study Session, January 12, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
In preparation for the upcoming legislative session the Council has had a practice of inviting
our state and county elected representatives and Met Council representative to a study session
to discuss the upcoming session and the City’s legislative agenda. Senator Ron Latz,
Representative Cheryl Youakim, Representative Ryan Winkler, Hennepin County
Commissioner Marion Greene and Metropolitan Council Representative Jim Brimeyer have
been invited to this meeting. Note that staff will send a draft legislative agenda document out
to you before this meeting to obtain your feedback.
3. PUD Ordinance – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discuss the draft ordinance amendments following the Planning Commission public hearing
and prior to City Council’s consideration of the first reading of the zoning ordinance.
4. Off Sale Liquor Licensing – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Council has asked that this item be put on a study session to allow a discussion on the
licensing provisions the City has for off-sale liquor establishments. Staff is suggesting the
topic for this specific agenda to avoid having to discuss this issue after another off-sale liquor
license application has been made.
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.
End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m.
Reports
4. McGarvey Property Update
5. Street Smart SLP
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 8, 2014
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires final direction on moving forward with the
SWLRT Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs) for the Beltline Boulevard
underpass.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to confirm moving forward on a
commitment to funding the design for the Beltline Boulevard underpass LRCIs as discussed in
this report?
SUMMARY: A table showing the status of the city requested LRCIs is attached. The Beltline
Boulevard underpass LRCI is the subject of the study session Monday night. This LRCI is to
grade separate the roadway under the rail tracks/ future LRT tracks and regional trail. A focus of
the discussion will relate to understanding the cost/benefit of grade separating Beltline Blvd. and
other impacts. Additional information is also provided on the BAC and CAC committees, as well
as the Executive Change Control Board (ECCB).
Background Information
Engineering staff will present information provided by the city’s consultants and Southwest
Project Office (SPO) related to traffic operations along Beltline and the impacted intersections.
Timeline
If the city decides to pursue the design for the various LRCIs, a Master Funding Agreement and
a Subordinate Funding Agreement between the City and SPO will be needed in early 2015.
Draft agreements were received this week from Met Council and the City Attorney is reviewing
them.
CAC and BAC members - Advertisements for Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and
Business Advisory Committee (BAC) members to represent St. Louis Park have been sent out
and on the city’s web site. Tentatively, Council interviews will be held on January 5th with
appointments on January 20th. The first meeting for the combined committees is expected to be
the first week of February.
ECCB Members – The Southwest Project Office (SPO) has requested that the City appoint a
non-voting member to the Executive Change Control Board. The first meeting is on Thursday,
December 18th from 11:30 am – 1:00 pm at the SPO (6465 Wayzata Blvd).
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineer Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
DISCUSSION
Locally Requested Capital Improvements:
The City will need to commit to covering design and environmental costs for the LRCIs we wish
to pursue. Agreements will need to be in place by early 2015. Below is the list of the city’s
LRCIs with the current status of each.
For discussion purposes, 5 as highlighted in pink is proposed for discussion at the meeting.
LRCI STATUS
1. Grade separated trail crossing at Wooddale Hennepin County is undertaking the responsibility of
this LRCI and along with Three Rivers Park District.
The two agencies will apply for grant funds and
share the design and construction costs to build a
trail tunnel at Wooddale.
2. Xenwood Underpass Discussed at 11/24/14 meeting.
3. Grade separated trail bridge at Beltline Hennepin County is undertaking the responsibility of
this LRCI and along with Three Rivers Park District.
The two agencies will apply for grant funds and
share the design and construction costs to extend the
trail bridge at Beltline, in the event the roadway is
not built as an underpass.
4. Beltline Blvd underpass Traffic and design information will be presented for
a detailed discussion at December 8th Study Session.
5. Circulation and access improvements at
Beltline Station*
Discussed at 11/24/14 meeting.
6. A commitment to structured parking at
Beltline Park & Ride
Working with SPO to apply for a CMAQ grant and
complete the Joint Development process to build a
ramp with development. No action required at this
time.
7. Ped/Bike Connection to Methodist Hospital
from Lou Ave station
SWLRT not intending to make improvements off of
the LRT corridor. Staff will continue to work on this
issue with a longer time horizon.
8. Streetscape and engineering plans to
accommodate development in accordance
with TSAAP plans
Some of this will be covered in station area design;
some will be undertaken with Connect the Park;
additional improvements off of the LRT corridor are
being considered in the City’s CIP.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Southwest LRT Update
LRCI Total Project
Expenditure
Opening day
(estimated)
Constr. Cost
estimating
Design &
Environmenta
l costs
New
Design
Cost
Estimate
New
Environ-
mental
Analysis
Cost
Estimate
Level of
Schedule
Impact
9. Grade separated trail
crossing at Wooddale
$3.5 m $2,300,000 $230,000 $46,000 1B
10. Xenwood Underpass thru
rail/lrt/trail corridor only
(city would be responsible
for extending street to
underpass)
$13-15 m $3,500,000 $350,000 $170,000 1B
11. Grade separated trail
crossing at Beltline
$775,000 $500,000 $50,000 $10,000 1B
12. Beltline Blvd underpass $17-23 m $11,500,000 $1,150,000 $345,000 1A
13. Circulation & access
improvements at Beltline
Station*
$1.5 m $300,000* $30,000 $9,000 1A
14. A commitment to
structured parking at
Beltline Park & Ride
No estimates; assumed to be covered in Joint Development
project
2
15. Ped/Bike Connection to
Methodist Hospital from
Lou Ave station
No estimates; SWLRT not intending to make improvements
off of the LRT corridor.
1A
16. Streetscape and
engineering plans to
accommodate
development in
accordance with TSAAP
plans
No estimates; These issues will be addressed during the
Advanced Design stage of the SWLRT design process.
Changed
to level 2
*Note: LRCI 6 entails some property acquisitions that are not included in the construction estimate. The
acquisition is needed for the extension of Lynn Ave to a new “backage” road at the Beltline station.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Beltline Boulevard Underpass of Rail and Trail
Explanation of Issue
The Beltline Boulevard corridor from 36th Street to north of County State Aid Highway (CSAH)
25 is a heavily traveled roadway and the only north-south crossing of the railroad east of Trunk
Highway (TH) 100 in St. Louis Park. What follows are the 2013 traffic counts for this corridor.
Road Segment Average daily traffic
CSAH 25 TH100 to Beltline Blvd 25,500
CSAH 25 Beltline Blvd to France Ave 20,000
Ottawa Ave Minnetonka Blvd to CSAH 25 3,750
Beltline Blvd CSAH 25 to 35th Street 14,900
Beltline Blvd 35th Street to 36th Street 10,000
Within this stretch of road drivers currently encounter the intersection of CSAH 25, an at-grade
railroad crossing and an at-grade regional trail crossing. This report focuses on the CSAH 25
intersection, existing freight rail crossing and proposed LRT crossing. The Beltline Blvd regional
trail crossing is not discussed in depth in this report due to the commitment from Three Rivers
Parks and Hennepin County to construct a grade separation as part of the LRT project.
The intersection with CSAH 25 creates backups on Beltline and Ottawa throughout the day.
This is a function of the signal timing and lane geometrics at this intersection. In general since
there is more traffic on CSAH 25, the east-west legs of the intersection receive more green time.
This creates delay and backups for the north- south legs of the intersection.
A freight event occurs at the railroad crossing once or twice a day. This event can block the
roadway up to 8 minutes. When the event occurs during the PM peak hour, the system needs
time to recover from the traffic backups.
Knowing that this corridor experiences backups under existing conditions, the City is concerned
about how this corridor will function with the introduction of the Southwest Light Rail Transit
(SWLRT), Beltline Station platform and park and ride lot. This area is anticipated to have an
increase in new development due to the strong growth of St. Louis Park and joint development
opportunities that are planned near the Beltline Station. In addition, freight activities will remain
in the corridor and have some variability in frequency and duration based on projected rail
shipping in the upper Midwest.
Staff has been working closely with the SWLRT project office (SPO) and various consultants to
analyze the multi-modal use of the corridor in an effort to find solutions to the traffic issues in
the corridor. The City’s focus is to ensure that we take advantage of the opportunities presented
to successfully and economically mitigate the current and future congestion issues in this
corridor.
In order to understand the challenges of this corridor it is helpful to look at the existing traffic
conditions, projections for future traffic, and intersection operations. Taking a look at this
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Southwest LRT Update
information will help the City determine if grade separating the roadway will create enough
benefit for traffic operations to justify the estimated $23+ million cost.
Previous Studies
During freight rail events this area experiences delays at the railroad tracks that can last up to 8
minutes. The traffic backs up north to CSAH 25 and south of Park Glen Road (see figure #1).
Since Beltline Boulevard is an important part of our transportation system the City began
exploring ways mitigate the delay created by the freight rail crossings in a series of studies
completed from 2010 to 2013:
• Beltline Station Multi-Modal Access and Circulation Study (2010-2011)
• Beltline Station Area Alignment Studies (2012)
• Beltline Station Area Alignment Studies –Advisory Committee Input (2012-2013)
At the time of these studies there was little information known about frequency and duration of
LRT trains. Therefore the studies looked mainly at the vehicle traffic and freight traffic
interactions. These studies indicated that congestion occurs at the intersection of CSAH 25 and
improvements to the geometrics and signal timing could produce reduced congestion of the
corridor.
Figure #1 – Existing vehicle backups due to freight events
(Extending from CSAH 25 to south of Park Glen Road)
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Southwest Project Office Studies
Since the time the aforementioned studies were completed, the Southwest Project Office (SPO)
has been able to provide detailed information regarding the proposed operations of the LRT.
This information has been incorporated in to the analysis completed by SPO and the City’s
consultants. The updated models incorporate:
• 4 - 5 freight trains a day (currently 3-4 trains per day) with delay ranging from 3 to 8
minutes.
• 1 freight unit train in the pm peak hour (5-7 pm timeframe with delay of 8 minutes)
• 10 minute headway frequency of LRT trains (current operations suggest 15 minute
headways)
• Traffic growth consistent with our Comprehensive Plan for 2030. The City has also run a
more robust growth scenario that is more representative of a projected 2040 traffic
forecast for St. Louis Park. This growth scenario was provided to SPO so that they can
complete the 2040 regional model traffic forecasts, because of the complexity of the
regional model, it will take 4 to 5 months to complete.
CSAH 25 Intersection Operations
The CSAH 25 intersection is operated by Hennepin County and is configured to give priority to
the traffic traveling east and west due to the high volume of traffic (up to 25,500 cars per day).
Beltline Boulevard carries approximately 14,900 cars per day with the predominate movement of
traffic to west bound CSAH 25. Ottawa Avenue carries approximately 3,750 cars per day.
The large discrepancy between 25,500 and 3,750 cars per day create a signal timing that gives
only 13 percent of the green signal phase for vehicles traveling southbound on Ottawa Avenue.
Similarly, north bound Beltline Boulevard receives 26 percent of the green signal phasing. As a
result, it is common to witness substantial backups in the north and south bound directions at this
signal.
Freight Operations
Freight rail induced backups are a problem today without light rail on the occasion that longer
unit trains block Beltline Boulevard for 8 minutes. These trains are often traveling at about 10
mph and sometimes slower in order to store cars on the siding track.
Freight rail events that produce delays in the 8 minute range (see figure #1) happen infrequently.
On average there is only one train a week that comes at the PM peak hour (5-7 pm). This
represents only 1.5% of the total weekday evening peak hour time. The other two trains that
cross Beltline Boulevard are typically during the mid-day times when there is less traffic,
subsequently producing a shorter backup.
As a part of the SWLRT project, Met Council is proposing the removal of the siding track and
the installation of new higher quality tract will help to reduce the delays created by the train.
The removal of the siding track eliminates the delay created by trains that would move across
Beltline, slow to a stop and back up across Beltline to move onto the siding. New track will
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Southwest LRT Update
allow the train speed to increase from 10 mph to as much as 25 mph reducing the amount of time
that Beltline is blocked.
In order to predict the future of freight traffic along this corridor, we have looked back at trends.
Over the last 2 decades, freight traffic has been relatively stable or even decreasing. The
character of the trains and what they haul has changed, but the number of trains is relatively
consistent. In the 1990’s there were 30 trains per week, in 2010 about 25 trains and today only
about 20 trains per week. Another thing to consider is that in this corridor there is a single
freight track. With one track, the frequency of the freight trains can only be about once every 30
minutes but most likely it would not be more than once every four to five hours due to the
limitations of the capacity of the single rail and the limitations at either end of the track (the
origins and destination would not have the capacity to handle more trains)..
LRT Operations
The introduction of light rail trains at 5 minute intervals (10 minute headways) will block
Beltline Boulevard for 45 seconds. This blockage is similar in operation to a traffic signal. For
comparison, a traffic signal at a typical intersection takes about 2 minutes to complete a cycle.
Analysis indicates that light rail trains produce a modest delay in the traffic through the corridor.
SPO has proposed to mitigate this delay by making signal timing improvements and adding an
additional northbound to westbound left turn lane at the CSAH 25 and Beltline intersection.
When freight train events and light rail events happen at the same time, or back to back, the
delay at the tracks is similar to a freight rail only event. (see figure #1) Beltline Boulevard will
experience about the same severity of backs ups with or without light rail since freight rail is the
event that creates the longer delays.
Traffic Mitigation Review
Staff has been investigating ways to improve the operations of the Beltline Boulevard corridor.
Analysis has indicated that the current configuration of the CSAH 25 and Beltline intersection
and the freight train events are the two features that create the majority of the delay and backups
along this corridor. What follows are some of the mitigation measures that have been looked at
and some of the findings.
Intersection Improvements
The City, SPO and Hennepin County all acknowledge there are congestion problems that occur
at the intersection of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard. The congestion occurs at all times of the
day, independent of freight rail.
SPO identified and has indicated they would be responsible for the following intersection
improvements that will help to reduce backups today and for the future:
• Dual left turns for north bound Beltline Boulevard to west bound CSAH 25
• Queue cutter signal at the LRT tracks that will be coordinated with the signal at CSAH 25
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Title: Southwest LRT Update
The following improvements have been identified as part of our additional analysis and are
potentially new Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs). The changes further improve
the traffic operations of the intersection and Beltline Boulevard:
• Dual left turns for west bound CSAH 25 to south bound Beltline Boulevard
• Change the lane configuration on south bound Ottawa and CSAH 25. This will allow
more green time, subsequently increasing the number of vehicles able to get through each
cycle of the signal.
• Widen south bound Beltline between CSAH 25 and the railroad tracks, to create two
receiving lanes creating more room for vehicle stacking.
• Signalize the Park Glen Road and Beltline Blvd intersection, adding turn lanes as
redevelopment happens.
The estimated cost for these improvements is $2 million. It is expected that they would
significantly improve the operations for the north-south legs of the intersection, reducing the
delays at all times of the day.
In addition to these improvements, staff is suggesting that the City complete a corridor study of
CSAH 25 east of TH 100 to establish the vision for the corridor. This study would involve
representatives from Hennepin County, MnDOT and the City of Minneapolis. Staff expects this
study will take six to eight months to complete and would coincide with the advance design
plans for the SWLRT. The results would be used to guide SPO’s final design plans to ensure the
infrastructure is built with the forethought to accommodate the ultimate build of CSAH 25. This
study could cost as much as $100,000. The costs of the subsequent improvements to CSAH 25
depend on the study findings; however, similar corridor reconstruction projects have cost about 5
million dollars.
Grade Separation
Grade separation of the freight rail by lowering Beltline Boulevard under the freight tracks is
estimated to cost 23 million dollars (see item #12 on page 3). This estimated cost does not
include land acquisition that may be needed to complete construction. Also, this segment of the
road crosses an old rail yard. It is likely that during construction we will encounter contaminated
soils; this is a cost that is not included in the existing estimate.
The high ground water table in this area requires a unique design for this underpass. It will also
mean a higher than typical on-going maintenance costs and ultimate reconstruction cost.
Creating an underpass at this location will change the character of the area. The vertical
separation may be perceived as a barrier between the station and the roadway users, creating a
less attractive pedestrian and bicyclist environment. (see figure #2) . The introduction of
multiple retaining walls creates challenges for integration of the Beltline Station platform and the
anticipated redevelopment opportunities.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Figure #2 – Grade Separation of Beltline
As shown in figure #3, this underpass would be similar in scale to the Highway 7 and Wooddale
grade separation completed in 2010. In addition, this separation creates design and access
challenges for the Beltline Joint Development site and the backage road that would connect to
Lynn Avenue as discussed at the study session on November 24th.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Title: Southwest LRT Update
Figure #3 – Grade Separation of Beltline
Next Steps
The Beltline Boulevard corridor is the spine that connects residents and businesses to the many
amenities on the east side of TH 100. The introduction of a high quality light rail line and the
Beltline Station will continue to enhance the area. The continued growth of this area and the
introduction the LRT will require infrastructure improvements to handle the increase vehicle,
pedestrian and bicycle traffic in this area.
Intersection improvements at CSAH 25 and grade separation of Beltline Boulevard are two
major infrastructure projects outlined in this report that will have a significant impact on the
mitigation of future congestion in this area.
The large design and construction costs associated with the options will be the responsibility of
the City. Staff is prepared to help inform Council on the cost-benefit of the proposed
improvements.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 8, 2014
Written Report: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proposed Business Terms of Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment
Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. This matter is scheduled to be
considered by the EDA and City Council on December 15
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA/City Council support the proposed business
terms of the Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment Contract?
SUMMARY: DLC Residential, LLC is acquiring the vacant, eastern portion of The West End
redevelopment site from Duke Realty. DLC’s proposed Concept Plan for the 14 acre site called
Central Park West depicts a mix of uses including two multi-family residential buildings (with
up to 400 units), a 120 to150 room hotel, and two Class A office buildings with up to 710,000
square feet of leasable space between them. Future plans call for a third multi-family residential
building with up to 176 units to be constructed at 5235 Wayzata Blvd (the property currently
leased to The Olive Garden restaurant). The Central Park West Concept Plan was discussed at
the August 18th and November 24th Study Sessions where it was favorably received and staff was
directed to work with the Redeveloper on the necessary formal approvals.
On December 15th the EDA and City Council will be asked to consider an Assignment and
Assumption Agreement between Duke Realty and DLC Residential under which DLC agrees to
comply with all the obligations and conditions of the Redevelopment Contract with Duke
applicable to the property it is purchasing. Duke will continue to be responsible for the remaining
portion of The West End property which it retains. At that same meeting, the EDA and City
Council will also be asked to consider a Second Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment which will include specific terms and requirements related to the development of
Central Park West. A summary of the proposed key business terms of that Amendment are
attached for review and consideration. Discussions with DLC are currently in-progress so some
of the terms may be subject to revision.
Please provide staff with any feedback on the proposed Business Terms.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All costs associated with the Second
Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract (such as the EDA’s legal counsel) are to be paid by
Duke Realty.
VISION CONSIDERATION: This project is consistent with the City Council’s strategic
direction of being a connected and engaged community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening , EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No.3) Page 2
Title: Proposed Business Terms of Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment Contract
DISCUSSION
Proposed Business Terms of 2nd Amendment to West End Redevelopment Contract
The following are proposed Business Terms between the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (“EDA”), the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and DLC Residential, LLC (“Redeveloper”),
to be incorporated into a Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment for The West
End Redevelopment. The required Minimum Improvements are generally to be constructed on the
properties east of Utica Ave (“Outlot A, The Shops at West End Addition”) and 5235 Wayzata Blvd
(currently leased to The Olive Garden restaurant) collectively referred to as the “subject property”.
1. Minimum Improvements. The Minimum Improvements consist of the following
constructed in phases, located as shown on the Master Site Plan and Central Park West
Master Site Plan and in accordance with the Final PUD and Final Central Park West
PUD:
(a) Phase I: Approximately 199 or more multi-family residential units to be located
in a multi-story building with associated underground structured parking.
Reconstruction of Utica Avenue from approximately the south end of Outlot A
West End Addition north to Wayzata Blvd with a boulevard in the middle to
match the existing boulevard in Utica Ave south of 16th Street.
Construction of a central, outdoor gathering place and public pedestrian/bicycle
connection
(b) Phase II: Approximately 164 units of multi-family housing to be located in a
multistory building with associated underground structured parking.
The multi-family housing units in Phases I and II combined may not exceed 400
units, and at least 11 units of such housing will be reserved for individuals whose
income is 60% or less of area median gross income (the “Affordable Units”).
The parties agree that all Affordable Units will be located on the subject property
located in the City of St. Louis Park.
(c) Phase III: A 120 to 150-room hotel with associated surface and underground
structured parking.
(d) Phase IV: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in
a multi-story building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Phases I-III,
including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade,
multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property.
(e) Phase V: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of Class A office located in a
multi-story building to be located adjacent to and integrated with Phases I-IV,
including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade,
multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property.
Between Phases IV and V the Redeveloper may construct no more than 710,000
total gross square feet of Class A office space.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No.3) Page 3
Title: Proposed Business Terms of Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment Contract
(f) Phase VI: Approximately 176 units of multi-family housing to be located at
5235 Wayzata Blvd (currently leased to The Olive Garden restaurant) in a multi-
story building with underground structured parking, including a number of
affordable housing units subject to terms mutually agreed upon by the parties
prior to submission of formal planning applications to the City.
2. Additional Covenants. The Minimum Improvements must substantially comply with
the Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and with the Final PUD
and Final Central Park West PUD, and must meet the following specifications:
(a) DLC shall, for Central Park West Phases I-VI, comply with the City’s Green
Building Policy adopted by the City and Authority on February 16, 2010, and as
such policy may be amended as of the date of issuance of a building permit for
any Phase. The core and shell of all Phases of Class A office facilities must
meet either current LEED or B3 certification requirements; provided that DLC
shall have the authority to choose which of these certification methods apply.
(b) DLC agrees to provide outdoor gathering places in Central Park West Phase I, as
shown on the Central Park West Master Site Plan and in accordance with the
Final Central Park West PUD. The outdoor gathering place shall include a plaza,
green space, or other open space available for use by the general public and
incorporating features such as fountains, public art, street furnishings, special
lighting or other public amenities. Such space will be privately owned,
controlled and managed but available for use by the public, subject to such
protocols and scheduling as reasonably established by the owner of such Phase.
As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for Central Park West
Phase I, the City and DLC shall enter into a use agreement (a “Use Agreement”),
that will generally provide for notice and review by DLC of activities initiated
by the City, and will describe the respective insurance and maintenance
obligations of the parties in connection with such activities.
(c) DLC shall provide public pedestrian connections throughout the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property, substantially in accordance with the
Central Park West Master Site Plan. Such connections within or adjacent to a
particular Phase must be completed within the time schedule for that Phase
shown on the Construction Schedule.
(d) DLC shall provide a public pedestrian/bicycle connection through the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property that joins Wayzata
Boulevard and Utica Avenue, substantially in accordance with the Central Park
West Master Site Plan and Final Central Park West PUD.
(e) DLC s hall construct a circular transit bus turnaround at the termination of 16th
Street and Utica Avenue (or other such accommodations as reasonably required
by Metro Transit), and shall accommodate public transit throughout the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, in accordance with the
Master Site Plan and Central Park West Master Site Plan and the Final PUD and
Final Central Park West PUD.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No.3) Page 4
Title: Proposed Business Terms of Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment Contract
(f) DLC shall accommodate and include public art throughout the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property in accordance with the requirements of the
Final Central Park West PUD.
(g) DLC shall accommodate electronic communication construction and cabling by
the City throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property,
including without limitation granting or dedicating to the City (without cost to
the City) easements or similar rights to (i) place fiber and conduit in private
roadways, from public or private roadways to each building, within each
building to a point of presence, and from the point of presence to the roof; (ii)
place wireless radio equipment on each building’s roof; and (iii) install wireless
or fiber access in public spaces in each building (e.g. lobby, waiting areas) and in
the central, outdoor gathering space. All such rights and easements are subject
to reasonable review by DLC as to location and aesthetics. DLC shall install
conduit for electronic communication as part of Redeveloper Public
Improvements described in Section 4.4 hereof. Except for contribution of
easements or other rights described above (and except as otherwise provided in
Section 4.4), installation of electronic communication and cabling shall be at no
cost to DLC.
(h) DLC shall provide easements or access for wireless communication conduit and
cabling throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property.
(i) DLC shall install dedicated conduit from each building’s point of presence to
each internal wiring closet, thence to each living/working space. Each
living/working space shall have two (2) connections, each capable of supporting
at minimum a one-gigabit connection.
3. Minimum Improvements. (i) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall
Commence construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements by the Required
Commencement Date, and shall substantially complete construction of each Phase by
the Required Completion Date, all as follows:
Phase
Required
Commencement
Date
Required
Completion
Date
CENTRAL PARK WEST Phase I
(multifamily housing)
April 1, 2015 August 30, 2016
Central Park West Phase II
(multifamily housing)
April 1, 2015 June 30, 2016
Central Park West Phase III (hotel) April 1, 2015 June 30, 2016
Central Park West Phase IV (office) April 1, 2016 June 30, 2017
Central Park West Phase V (office) April 1, 2019 June 30, 2020
Central Park West Phase VI (multi-
family housing)
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No.3) Page 5
Title: Proposed Business Terms of Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment Contract
If the Redeveloper anticipates that the timetable for any Phase will not be met,
Redeveloper shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council of the City
at a regular City Council meeting prior to the relevant Required Commencement Date or
Completion Date. The report must describe the reasons for the expected failure to meet
the schedule, evidence of Redeveloper’s due diligence in working toward construction
of the relevant Phase, and a detailed revised schedule. Failure to timely provide such
written and oral report is an Event of Default.
4. Redeveloper Public Improvement Costs. Redeveloper shall pay all costs of
Redeveloper Public Improvements.
5. Maintenance Requirements. The parties agree that, as a condition to issuance of the
Certificate of Completion for each Phase, the Redeveloper and City shall execute a
reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement (“REMA”) that assigns those
parties’ respective responsibilities regarding maintenance, repairs, and cost of such
activities, related to the subject Phase. The parties agree that the City has entered into
a REMA with Duke in connection with Phases I, IIA, and IIC. For the remaining
Phases, there may be a single REMA, or separate documents related to each Phase, as
the parties mutually agree. The City and DLC agree that each REMA will be based
on the following principles.
(a) The City will have primary responsibility for:
(i) customary maintenance, repair and replacement up to the curb line
of all public streets and utilities within and immediately adjacent to the
Redevelopment Property.
(ii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of standard street
lighting located in the public right of way within and immediately adjacent
to the Redevelopment Property; and
(iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of streetscape
between the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along the west
side of Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and Interstate 394
and along the south side of Gamble Drive, together with the entire median
within those portions of Park Place Drive and Gamble Drive; provided
that the City may, at its sole discretion, assign such maintenance
obligation to any other party and/or assign all or any portion of the cost of
such obligation to owners of property west of Park Place Boulevard and
south of Gamble Drive through a special service district.
(b) The Redeveloper will have primary responsibility for:
(i) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of all private
streets and alleys within the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley
Property.
(ii) customary repair and replacement (but not maintenance such as
street cleaning and plowing) of aesthetic enhancements within any public
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No.3) Page 6
Title: Proposed Business Terms of Second Amendment to The West End Redevelopment Contract
right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property.
(iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement for all streetscape
between the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along all
public streets within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property including without limitation snow
removal from streets, sidewalks, public gathering spaces, and pedestrian
connections.
(iv) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of medians within
West 16th Street and Utica Avenue.
(c) Each party will have access to property controlled by the other in order
carry out responsibilities under the REMA.
(d) The City will be given authority to cure any defaults by Redeveloper
under the REMA by undertaking the Redeveloper’s defaulted
responsibilities under the REMA and assessing the cost to the relevant
Parcels, provided that such remedy will not be the City’s exclusive
remedy.
6. The parties acknowledge that Duke intends to Transfer Central Park West Phases I-
VI to DLC, and that Duke will seek release of Duke’s obligations with respect to
these Phases. The EDA will cooperate with Duke and DLC in such effort. The
Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 as
amended remains in full force and effect.
Next Steps
The Assignment and Assumption, Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract, the
Preliminary Plat and PUD are scheduled for formal consideration at the December 15th EDA and
City Council meetings.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 8, 2014
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Comcast Franchise Transfer
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform
the City Council about the progress made evaluating the proposed Comcast franchise transfer
and the process to approve or deny the transfer.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you
might have.
SUMMARY: On June 18, 2014, the City received formal notice from Comcast that they plan a
series of transactions that affect the St. Louis Park Cable TV franchise. A cable TV franchise
transfer is guided by state and federal law, and the City has the authority to evaluate the legal,
technical and financial capability of the proposed new franchisee.
With the approval of the Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council, the city
is partnering with MACTA (state Cable TV administrators professional group) for a detailed
financial review of the newly created franchisee, GreatLand Communications, Inc. Separately,
Front Range Consulting is conducting a franchise fee review of Comcast for 2011, 2012 and
2013 for just the City of St. Louis Park.
Like many other cities, St. Louis Park had many questions for Comcast regarding its proposed
transfer. Comcast and GreatLand didn’t reply to each question but provided thirty pages of
information on October 3, a detailed filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission about
November 1, and a copy of the Service Agreement between Charter, Comcast and GreatLand in
mid-November.
Brian Grogan, the Moss and Barnett attorney leading the legal review of the transfer for the city,
is expected to meet with the Council and the Telecommunications Advisory Commission on
December 15 to report on the additional information and to provide legal analysis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Financial and legal reviews are underway
and expected to cost $13,500 to $14,500. The City is partnering with numerous other cities to
reduce the cost of these reviews, especially since these costs were unknown and unbudgeted by
all local franchising authorities. A previously approved and budgeted franchise fee compliance
audit for 2011, 2012 and 2013 is also underway and will cost $8,500. The source of funding for
both activities will be the Cable TV Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator
Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
What’s the City’s role in the Comcast franchise transfer?
Evaluate the legal, technical and financial capability of franchisee/transferee, GreatLand
Connections, Inc., formerly known as SpinCo or Midwest Cable.
If we take any actions, when must we act?
Comcast has provided all Minnesota cities an extension to January 15, 2015 to act.
What will be the impact on customers if the franchise transfer is approved?
• The company name would change and, over time, policies would change
• Customer email addresses would change
• Login credentials to check billing statements online or check email remotely would
change (new user name and password)
• Customers might have to reapply for direct bill pay
• Telephone numbers would not change
• The customer equipment to receive cable channels would not change immediately, but
could be switched later
Financial Review Update:
MACTA’s financial review of GreatLand is conducted by Ashpaugh and Sculco and Front
Range Consulting. The final report is expected in early December.
Legal Review Update:
Moss & Barnett attorney Brian Grogan has collaborated with the several other attorneys in the
Twin Cities that specialize in telecommunications law, and met with Keith Hall, the GreatLand
Director for Government Relations, who visited several franchise authorities in October.
Mr. Hall said there would be a six to 12 month transition of services provided by Comcast to
minimize disruption to customers. After the transition, customer service will be provided by
Charter’s domestic call centers; they have no off-shore call centers. He said that customers will
be happy to change to GreatLand for better customer service. GreatLand will have 2.5 million
subscribers in eleven states, and the two largest markets will be Detroit with 1.2 million
subscribers, and the Twin Cities, with 550,000 subscribers.
GreatLand will be responsible for customer service (through contracts with Charter) and
franchising, and Charter will be responsible for technology, programming and content.
GreatLand executives have ties to the former Insight Communications, which was the ninth
largest cable company in the United States until purchased by Time Warner Cable in 2011.
Insight had a history of partnering with vendors to run their franchises.
Franchise Fee Audit:
Front Range Inc., the City’s franchise fee audit firm, has completed a draft report and provided it
to City Attorney Joel Jamnik. The draft report has been forwarded to Comcast for any
corrections before being finalized for the Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City
Council review.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Comcast Franchise Transfer
NEXT STEPS:
1. Special Study Session on December 15 to meet with Brian Grogan and discuss the legal
and financial reports. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission and staff will
attend as well.
2. Decide on December 15 if a special meeting of the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission is needed to develop a recommendation for City Council consideration.
3. The Council can expect to consider the franchise transfer at the January 5, 2015 meeting
to comply with the January 15 deadline for action. Mr. Grogan says that the transfer can
be approved or denied via a Council resolution, instead of as an ordinance.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 8, 2014
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council have any questions or concerns regarding the
proposed PUD ordinance?
SUMMARY: Staff are proposing revisions to the City’s PUD district related to procedures, text
and regulations. Staff introduced the option of revising the entire PUD at the October 27 study
session related to the Bally’s redevelopment proposal. The Council provided direction for staff to
pursue a complete revision at that time. The revisions are largely due to the City Attorney’s
suggestion, but also provide an opportunity to improve the PUD process and regulations.
Procedural changes include the approval of PUDs as an ordinance which provides the City
Council with more discretion in approving or denying an application. The current draft ordinance
includes proposed changes that give the City Council broader discretion related to such
performance standards as density as well as the mix of uses within a PUD. The attached draft
ordinance also includes revisions based on Planning Commission feedback from their November
5, 2014 study session. One such change is the addition of language requiring compliance with
the City’s Green Building Policy as a way to address Planning Commission concern about a lack
of sustainability language in City Code.
Staff are continuing to work with the City Attorney on the administration and process of the
proposed ordinance and are also reviewing other cities’ approaches to PUDs for reference. The
draft ordinance will be further revised based on City Attorney feedback as well as Council
comments. Staff would like to hold the public hearing on the new PUD ordinance at the January
7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
DRAFT PUD Ordinance
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City has considered revising its PUD ordinance for several years,
largely at the suggestion of the City Attorney. Currently, PUDs are processed and approved by
resolution, a quasi-judicial action, and they are more similar to a conditional use permit (CUP).
The proposed change would require each PUD to be approved as a distinct zoning ordinance,
which is an entirely legislative action.
Each PUD would be approved in the same manner as other ordinances are, and a PUD
designation would be placed on the zoning map. Essentially, any development approved through
this process would become its own stand-alone zoning district, with all zoning requirements for
the development provided in the ordinance approving the development. This approach eliminates
the need to process a separate rezoning or any variances at the time of a PUD request, as the
PUD would be established by ordinance.
Staff is proposing changes to both the text and structure of the PUD section. Some changes are to
clean up the general format and structure of the section by reorganizing various elements as well
as revising relevant sections to fit with the proposed approval process. The proposed text
changes are an effort to provide more clarity of expectations, and in particular provide more
flexibility and discretion in what can be accomplished through the use of a PUD. As currently
drafted, this ordinance would give the City Council broader discretion to increase the density, set
other requirements based on the site plans and establish the uses for each individual PUD
development. Listed below are the more significant policy changes being proposed:
1. Currently PUDs “may not be approved on R-1 or R-2 zoned property”. Staff proposes
changing this to: “Low-Density Residential as guided in the Comprehensive Plan.”
2. Removing all limits on “modifications” except for the following items:
a. Building heights and setbacks adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zoned properties.
b. Requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance.
c. Sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district, determined by the
Zoning Administrator.
The Council would have greater discretion regarding performance standards such as
density, floor area ratio (FAR) and designed outdoor recreation area (DORA).
3. Establishing a “most closely related conventional zoning district”.
4. Defining Major, Minor and Administrative Amendments.
NEXT STEPS: Staff would like feedback on the proposed PUD ordinance, particularly with
regard to a greater ability for PUDs to include a mix of uses and those items listed above. If the
Council is generally supportive of the proposed changes Staff would incorporate any additional
feedback and revisions and schedule a public hearing for January 7, 2015 Planning Commission
meeting, and the First Reading of the Ordinance at the January 19 Council meeting. A Council
study session discussion is tentatively scheduled for January 12, 2015. This timeline coincides
well with having the new PUD ordinance in place prior to the formal application of several
development concepts which the Council has recently discussed.
ORDINANCE NO.14-____
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CREATING A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 36-111 is amended to add the following subsection:
(6) Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, See Section 36-341.
SECTION 2. Chapter 36 is amended to add the following:
Sec. 36-367.341. Planned Unit Development (PUD) process District.
(a) Findings and Purpose. The purpose The city council finds that of a PUD process
willDistrict is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure
intended to allow because the process permits greater flexibility in the development of a parcel
land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. by tailoring the development to
the site and neighborhood. Such benefits include, but are not limited to:
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land
development.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high-
quality development at a lesser cost.
(4) Provision of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made more usable and
be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional
development procedures.
(5) A flexible approach to development is permitted by aAllowing certain limited
modifications to the strict application of regulations of the useconventional zoning
districts that are in harmony with the goals, purposepolicies and intent of the cCity's
cComprehensive pPlan and this chapter.
(6) A more creative and efficient use of land is encouraged.
(7) The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, including flora and
fauna, scenic views, screening and access is fostered.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 3
(8) Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain
areas of the city and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved.
(9) Flexibility in the design and construction is allowed for development in cases where
large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and have the potential to
significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
(b) Application of section provisions. The provisions of this section shall be administered as
follows:
(1) No PUD shall be approved on property located in the R-1 district or R-2 districtguided
by the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development.
(2) PUD Regulations. Approval of aA PUD district shall not alter the underlying use district
classification or the application of districtincorporate the regulations of to the most
closely related zoning district to the proposed project, as determined by the zoning
administrator, and shall be designated in the approving ordinance. unless they are
modified under the terms of subsection (d) of this section.
(3) Modifications. The PUD provisions may modify any portion of the most closely related
zoning district or other regulations of the code as part of the overall approval of the PUD
ordinance, except for those items listed below.
a. The following items may not be modified:
1. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used
districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and
rear building setback of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in height if the
portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear
property lines a distance equal to the additional height.
2. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance.
3. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning
district.
b. The modifications must bear a demonstrable relationship to, and be consistent with,
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
(4) Permitted land uses. Permitted land uses in a PUD shall be limited to those land uses
permitted in the underlying use district. Residential and non-residential uses may be
included in a single PUD district provided that those uses are currently allowed in one of
the City’s other zoning districts. The PUD ordinance shall identify all land uses allowed
in the PUD district. Any change from the uses listed in the PUD ordinance shall be
considered an amendment to the PUD and shall follow the procedures specified in Sec.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 4
36-341. The following uses are prohibited in a PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms
Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan agency; Sexually Oriented Business
(5) Minimum area. Projects available for PUD treatment shall have a site which consistsA
PUD district must consist of a parcel or contiguous parcels of land at least two acres or
more in size. Tracts of less than two acres may be approved only if the applicant can
demonstrate that a project of superior design can be achieved or that greater compliance
with comprehensive plan goals and policies can be attained through use of thea PUD
process.
(5) Modifications of use district regulations may be approved as part of the overall approval
of the PUD, if the following conditions are satisfied:
a. The modifications bear a demonstrable relationship to, and are consistent with,
the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.
b. The adverse impact and effect of such modifications will be eliminated by
screening landscaping, superior site and building design and other features related
to planning, design and construction.
c. The modification is necessary to achieve the purposes of this subsection.
d. The modifications are limited to those allowed in table 36-367A and fall within
allowable limits authorized by subsection (d)(3) of this section.
(6) Planned unit development projects shall be subject to the imposition of additional
requirements as part of the PUD approval when, in the opinion of the city council, such
additional requirements are necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety,
neighborhood character and/or to achieve the objectives contained in section 36-1.
(c) Building and site design. The city council shall find that the quality of building and site
design proposed by the PUD plan will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement
relevant goals and policies of the cComprehensive pPlan before a PUD plan may be approved. In
addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment
within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site
features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
(2) The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential
adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects
of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 5
(3) The design shall take into account any modifications of chapter requirements and
provide appropriate solutions to eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification
required for approval of the PUD.
(3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy.
(4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged.
(45) If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested that involves construction over
a period of time or in two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall demonstrate that
each phase is capable of addressing and meeting these criteria independent of the other
phases.
(56) More than one building may be placed on one lot in a PUD.
(6) Unless modified by the following or other provisions of this chapter, a PUD in an R-3,
R-4 or R-B district shall conform to the requirements of the district within which it is
located:
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet
of frontage on a public right-of-way.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the
property abutting the subject property is in an R-1 or R-2 district.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than half the
sum of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which
may be directly connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required
off-street parking space.
(7) A PUD in a nonresidential district shall conform to the requirements of the district in
which it is located except as modified by the following or other provisions of this
chapter:
A(7). All off-street loading facilities, including loading debris, shall be
completely contained within a building.
b. If property which is either residentially used or zoned abuts a site proposed for
development as a PUD, the required yard in the PUD along the property line
adjacent to the residential property shall be equal to one foot for every one foot of
building height for each structure.
(d) Modifications.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 6
(1) Modifications of chapter requirements granted as part of a PUD shall not be subject to
the provisions of section 36-33. Such modifications shall be approved as part of the
overall approval of a PUD but any modification granted shall be written into the
resolution approving the PUD.
(2) Any modification of chapter requirements approved as part of a PUD shall be approved
only upon a showing that the modification does not adversely affect surrounding
properties because the PUD plan has provided screening, fencing, walls, or other site
improvements which have eliminated the adverse effects of the modification.
(3) Any modification approved as part of a PUD shall not exceed the maximum
modification allowed as shown on table 36-367A, except as specifically approved for
shopping centers over 200,000 square feet according to the conditions in section 36-194
or as specifically approved for mixed use developments according to the conditions in
the M-X district:
TABLE 36-367A
ALLOWABLE MODIFICATIONS IN PUDS
Chapter Requirement Maximum Modification Allowed
Distance from property lines, except when
abutting residentially zoned or used
property
No required yards;
Distance from other buildings
As building code allows
Building height
No maximum if consistent with the
comprehensive plan
Density
10% increase or as cConsistent with the
comprehensive plan
Ground floor area
5% increase
Floor area ratio
Limited by height, density and ground floor area
restrictions
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area
33% decrease consistent with provisions below.
If land is dedicated for park, then the decrease
may be increased to 50% according to
provisions below.
Parking
15% decrease in addition to other allowable
chapter reductions
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 7
(4) An applicant for a PUD seeking modifications as permitted in table 36-367A shall
demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the following
objectives:
a. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project;
b. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities;
c. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing;
d. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the
PUD plan;
e. Provide public plazasspaces and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds
minimum chapter requirements; and
f. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public
art.
(5) If the applicant is seeking modifications to the use district requirements for designed
outdoor recreation area, those modifications are allowed at the sole discretion of the
City Council based upon the following provisions.
a. Reductions of up to 50% of the designed outdoor recreational area shall be
approved by PUD at the sole discretion of the City Council only if the site meets
of the following requirement:
Land or cash in lieu of land is dedicated for parks, trails, and open space on a one
for one basis up to a maximum of 50% of the requirement.
b. If the full park dedication reduction is not taken, the City Council may consider
reductions if the site meets one or more of the following requirements, but in no
case may the reduction for these items exceed 33% or the cumulative reduction
exceed 50% of the requirement:
1. Permanent accessible open space or regional trail is located on land within
600 feet of all buildings within the development and meets all of the
following:
i. Such open space or regional trail is deeded as public and designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as Park or is protected by covenants which ensure its
perpetuation for public use.
ii. The land area of such open space is at least twice the size of the
recreational area credit requested for the development site.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 8
iii. The development includes logical pedestrian/bicycle connections to the
open space or regional trail.
iv. The location of building service areas is away from the open space or in
heavily screened areas.
v. Design and location of buildings complement the scale and character of
the open space, and
vi. Use of substantial landscaping is provided to create transitions between
the development and open space.
Projects meeting all of the open space/trail requirements may reduce designed
outdoor recreational area requirements by up to 20%
2. Public Art. Recreation space credits for public art are granted at the sole
discretion of the city council and may reduce designed outdoor recreational
area requirements by up to 20%.
3. Other public amenities. Recreational area credits for public amenities are
granted at the sole discretion of the city council and may reduce the designed
recreational area requirements by a maximum of 20%.
4. A redevelopment plan has been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan that
approves reductions to designed outdoor recreational area by a maximum of
33%.
5. Indoor parks. Recreation space credits for significant indoor recreational
space, such as a park or courtyard, may be granted at the sole discretion of the
city council and may reduce designed outdoor recreational area requirements
on a one for one basis by up to a maximum of 20%
(Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04)
(ed) Submission requirements and procedure.
(1) Planned unit development. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and considered
according to the requirements of this subsection and section 36-34 relating to
amendments.
(2) Preliminary discussionPre-Application Conference. Before filing an application for
approval of a PUD, an applicant is encouraged required to submit a concept plan for
review and comment by the city staff. The applicantStaff may requestschedule a review
of the concept plan by the planning commission to obtain the commission's nonbinding
comments on its merits.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 9
(3) Preliminary PUD plan. An application for a preliminary PUD plan shall include all of
the following information:
a. If land encompassed within a proposed PUD is to be platted, replatted or
subdivided, aAll information required for consideration and approval of a
preliminary plat is also required, if a plat is necessary. in accordance with the
Subdivision Ordinance of the City Code. Subdivision review shall be carried out
simultaneously with the review of a PUD.
b. A general development plan including the following:
1. Site conditions and existing development on the subject property and
immediately adjacent properties.
2. Site dimensions
23. The proposed use of all areas of the site.
34. The proposed density, type, size and location of all dwelling units, if dwelling
units are proposed.
45. The general size, location and use of any proposed nonresidential buildings on
the site.
56. All public streets, entrance and exit drives, and walkway locations.
67. Parking areas locations and calculations.
78. Landscaped areas and calculations.
89. Parks and open space, areas used for DORA, public plazasspaces and
common areas.
910. Site dimensions.
101. Generalized drainage and utility plans.
12. Storm water management plan.
113. Any other information which the city may request.
c. Summary sheets which include the following:
1. Proposed densities.
2. Acreage or square footage of individual land uses and DORA on the site.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 10
3. All proposed modifications of district regulations being requested.
d. Generalized staging plan for the project, including the geographical sequence of
construction and the number of dwelling units or square footage of nonresidential
property to be constructed in each stage.
e. Traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation
from the site at full development, the effect of such traffic on the level of service
of nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements.
f. A statement showing how the PUD will meet the stated purposes and objectives
of this section.
g. Environmental data which the city may deem necessary. At a minimum, this shall
include a preliminary analysis of the probability of site contamination.
(4) Final PUD plan. The final development plan for a PUD shall contain all of the
following information:
a. A final plat which meets the requirements of the Code provisions in the
Subdivision Ordinance of the City Code, and which create condominium
ownership, if required.
b. A final site plan drawn to scale showing the location of all structures including
their placement, setbacks, size and type as well as streets, parking areas and stall
arrangement, walkways and other pedestrian facilities, parking calculations, and
designed outdoor recreation area including public plazasspaces and commons.
(Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04)
c. A landscape plan showing the location, size, and species of all plant materials in
accordance with section 36-364, a landscaping irrigation system plan, and all
other non-vegetative landscaped features.
d. A utility plan showing the location and size of all on-site utilities and easements
as well as stormwater runoff calculations for both the predevelopment and post-
development condition of the site. All private utilities shall be labeled as such.
e. Building plans at a level of detail necessary to allow parking calculations to be
made and building elevation drawings showing architectural details and proposed
building materials, including the percentage of coverage on each elevation.
f. Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and
bylaws of any proposed homeowners' association or other documents or contracts
which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 11
g. A final staging plan, if staging is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence
and timing of development of the plan or portions thereof, including the estimated
date of beginning and completion of each state.
h. Any other information which the city in its sole discretion may require to fully
present the intention and character of the PUD.
(5) Procedure. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and processed according to the
requirements of this section and section 36-34 relating to amendments. No application
for a final PUD shall be processed until the application for a preliminary PUD has been
approved by the city council.
a. Preliminary PUD. An application for approval of a preliminary PUD district shall
be on a form provided by the city, and shall include all data and plans comprising
a Preliminary PUD plan. which shall include all of the following information:
1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant.
2. The name, address and telephone number of the property owner.
3. The districts in which the PUD is proposed to be located.
41. All data and plans comprising a preliminary PUD plan. No action on a
preliminary PUD will be taken until all of the required information is received
by the city.
b. The application shall be reviewed by city staff and a report concerning the
application shall be submitted to the planning commission for its consideration
within 45 days ofafter receipt of all material required by this section for review of
the application.
c. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with section
36-34(c)(3).34. The planning commission may continue the public hearing if
necessary and shall make a recommendation to the city council within 60 days of
the date of the initial public hearing. If the planning commission fails to deliver a
recommendation to the city council within the 60-day period, the city council may
then consider the preliminary PUD without the planning commission's
recommendation.
d. The city council may approve the preliminary PUD plan in whole or in part, may
approve subject to conditions, may deny, or may continue consideration of the
preliminary PUD plan for further investigation and hearing at a later date.
e. The city council shall render a decision regarding the preliminary PUD plan
request within 90 days of the council's initial consideration of the preliminary
PUD plan.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 12
f. When a preliminary PUD plan has been denied by the city council, the owner or
applicant may not reapply for the same or similar development on the same
property for the six-month period following the date of the denial.
gf. The final development plan for a PUD shall be submitted for approval within 90
days six months after city council approval of the preliminary PUD plan unless a
written request for a time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by
the city council. The final PUD plan shall be considered according to the
following procedure:
1. Final PUD. The cCity staff shall review the final PUD plan and make a report
of its findings and recommendations to the planning commission for its
consideration within 60 days following receipt of the final PUD plan.
2. The planning commission shall consider the staff report, other applicable data,
and testimony and shall submit its recommendation to the city council. If the
planning commission recommends approval of the final PUD plan, it shall
find that the final PUD plan is in substantial compliance with the preliminary
PUD plan and the comprehensive plan.
3. If Tthe planning commission shall does not refer provide a recommendation
on the final PUD plan to the city council within 60 days of its initial
consideration of the final PUD plan in a timely manner, then the city council
may take action on the request without a recommendation of the planning
commission.
4. The city council shall consider the final PUD plan. If the city council deems it
necessary, it may set a public hearing for consideration of the final PUD plan.
The city council may deny the final PUD plan or may approve the final PUD
plan in whole or in part. The Council shall make its decision within 60 days of
its first consideration of the final PUD plan or within 60 days following any
public hearing, whichever date is later.
hg. In instances where a PUD application does not require variances outside of code
modifications allowed by this section, the community development director may
elect to process the preliminary and final PUD simultaneously under the
following conditions:
1. Approval of the preliminary and final PUD will each be considered by
separate motion.
2. The application for the final PUD will not be considered complete until the
city council approves the preliminary PUD.
(6) Development agreement.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 13
a. The city may, at its sole discretion, require the owner and developer of a proposed
PUD to execute a development agreement which may include, but not be limited
to, all requirements of the final PUD plan as a condition to approval of a final
PUD.
b. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an irrevocable
letter of credit in favor of the city. The letter of credit shall be provided by a
financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the city. The city may
require that certain provisions and conditions of the development agreement be
stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an amount sufficient to
ensure the provision or development of improvement called for by the
development agreement.
(7) Operating and maintenance requirements for common areas. If certain land areas or
structures within the PUD are designated for recreational use, public plazas, open areas
or service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall file a suitable agreement
with the city that ensures the continued operation and maintenance of such areas or
facilities in a manner suitable to the city. These common areas may be placed under the
ownership and control of one of the following:
a. The landlord.
b. Homeowners' association, if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The homeowners' association must be established prior to the sale of any
property in the PUD.
2. Membership must be mandatory for each owner and successive buyer.
3. The open space restrictions must be permanent.
4. The association must be responsible for liability insurance, taxes and
maintenance.
5. The landowner must pay its pro rata share of an assessment levied by the
association and that share, if unpaid, must become a lien on the property
owned by the landowner.
6. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed needs.
(8) Fees and reimbursement for city costs. The fee for a PUD shall be the same as the fee
charged for a zoning change and plat approval. Section 36-35 shall also be applied to
PUD applications.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 14
(98) Modifications. Modifications granted as a part of a PUD shall have the same force and
effect as a variance granted under section 36-34. These modifications, if permitted as a
part of the approval of a PUD, shall be cited in the development agreement.
(109) Zoning map. All approved final development plansPUD districts shall be
drawndesignated on the cCity's zoning map as it is revised from time to time.
(110) Approval and amendments. The approval of a preliminary PUD plan and a final PUD
plan and major amendments to the approved final plan shall require an affirmative vote
of two-thirds of all the members of the city council. The approval of minor amendments
to the approved final plan shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of all the
members of the city council.
a. Building Permit. Except as provided in subsection (e)(11)b.2. of this section, nNo
building permit shall be issued or development shall occur on land for which a
PUD district has been approved which does not conform to the approved final
plan.
(11) b. Amendments. Development of land for which a PUD has been approved which
does not conform to the approved final plan shall only be allowed after one of the
following occurs: Amendments to the PUD district shall be processed the same as
the original application, except that submission requirements shall be modified as
appropriate by City Staff to reflect the nature of the proposed amendment.
1a. Major amendments. A major amendment to the approved final plan of the
PUD has shall been approved by the city council in the same manner as
required for approval of a preliminary PUD. Major amendments shall include:
i1. Changes in approved uses classifications;
ii2. Changes to the approved final plat that creates one or more new lots;
iii3.Increases in residential density, leasable floor area, building height, and/or
required parking;
iv4.Reductions in usable open spaceDORA below the required area;
v. Modifications to section requirements; and
vi5.Any changes that are anticipated to result in off-site impacts as determined
by the zoning administrator.
Application fees for major amendments to PUDs shall be the same as fees for
major amendments to conditional use permits.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 15
2b. Minor Amendments. A minor amendment to the approved final plan of the
PUD hasshall been approved by the city council in the same manner as
required for minor amendments to conditional use permits after all owners of
property within the PUD have been notified. Minor amendments shall include:
i. Changes that increase conformity with section requirements;
ii. Decreases in residential density, leasable floor area, building height,
impervious surface and/or required parking provided such decreases have
minimal impact on the overall character of the approved final plan as
determined by the zoning administrator;
iii1.Minor building additions, and floor plan modifications that do not increase
parking requirements or reduce usable open space DORA below the
required area; and
iv2.Changes that are specified as minor amendments in the approved
development agreement.
Application fees for minor amendments to PUDs shall be the same as fees for
minor amendments to conditional use permits.
3c. Administrative approval. Administrative approval shall require approval of
both the zoning administrator and the director of community development
unless otherwise stated in the approved development agreement.
Administrative approval has been obtained for modifications specified in the
development agreement as requiring only administrative approval.
Administrative approval shall require approval of both the zoning
administrator and the director of community development unless otherwise
stated in the approved development agreement. Such administrative approval
shall only be granted after the following has occurred:
i1. The applicant has provided written notification to all owners of property
within the PUD that such approval is being sought. The notification shall
inform the property owners that approval of the proposed modification
may be granted after ten businesscalendar days have elapsed from the
mailing date of the notice unless the a property owner files an appeal with
the director of inspections zoning administrator within that time. If any
such appeal is filed, the proposed modification shall be considered in the
same manner as a minor amendment to the approved final plan.
Ii2. All fees associated with the administrative approval have been paid. Fees
for administrative approval shall be determined in accordance with section
36-35.
Amendments that may be approved administratively include:
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 16
1. Decreases in residential density, leasable floor area, building height,
impervious surface and/or required parking provided such decreases have
minimal impact on the overall character of the approved final plan as
determined by the zoning administrator;
2. Changes to sign standards as approved in the final plan;
3. Administrative approval may be obtained for modifications specified in the
development agreement as requiring only administrative approval.
4. There is a vacation of the approved PUD by the city council after notice of
public hearing has been published and a public hearing has been conducted in
the same manner as required for approval of a preliminary PUD. The council
may impose conditions on the vacation of a PUD to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
(12) Automatic termination.12) Final Development Plan governs use of land. The subject
area shall be permanently governed by the conditions, provisions and restrictions of the
approved ordinance and final development plan. The ordinance and plan, as amended
from time to time, shall govern the use of the land.
a. Upon expiration of the time period approved by the city council for total
development of a PUD, the subject area shall be permanently governed by the
conditions, provisions and restrictions of the final development plan. That plan, as
it may be amended from time to time, shall govern the use of the land.
b. If a PUD is not completed within the required time period, the PUD classification
shall automatically terminate for that portion of the PUD which has not been
developed. The requirements and provisions of the primary use district shall apply
to the remaining undeveloped area.
(f) Conversion of former PUD districts.
(1) Conversion permitted. Properties located in areas which were PUD districts under the
previous zoning ordinance may seek to convert the previously approved PUD final
general plan or special permit approved pursuant to PUD district regulations to a
preliminary PUD plan or final PUD plan as may be appropriate under subsections (a)
through (e) of this section.
(2) Equivalence of former districts. For purposes of converting a former PUD district, a
final general PUD plan approved under the previous zoning ordinance shall be
equivalent to a preliminary PUD plan as described in subsection (e)(3) of this section. A
special permit approved under the previous zoning ordinance shall be equivalent to a
final PUD plan as described in subsection (e)(4) of this section.
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 17
(3) Nonconformities. Nonconformities in properties approved for conversion other than
nonconforming land uses shall be deemed to be in compliance with subsection (d) of
this section and shall not be subject to the provisions of section 36-401.
(4) Subsequent construction. All provisions of this chapter shall apply to any development
approved for construction subsequent to conversion unless modifications are approved
under subsection (d) of this section.
(5) Time limit. A property owner has one year from the effective date of the ordinance from
which this section is derived to apply for conversion under this section. The provisions
of the former PUD district shall remain in full force and effect until the property is
converted or until one year has elapsed. If an application for conversion has not been
filed within one year, the provisions of the former PUD district shall lapse and the
property shall be fully subject to all provisions of this section.
(6) Application process. An application for conversion shall be processed following the
procedures in section 36-34(b). In addition to any information required by section 36-
34(b) or administrative procedures pertaining thereto, the applicant shall include a
statement describing in detail the degree to which the final PUD plan or special permit
previously adopted is in compliance with and differs from the provisions of this section.
(7) Fees. The fee for an application to convert a previously approved PUD final general
plan or special permit shall be as determined by resolution of the city council.
SECTION 3. Section 36-367 is deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2012, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ATTEST: By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Study Session Meeting of December 8, 2014 (Item No. 5)
Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Update Page 18