Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/04/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. APRIL 15, 2015 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of April 1, 2015 3. Hearings A. Brewery Taproom – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Applicant: Steel Toe Brewery Case No.: 15-14-ZA B. Preliminary and Final Plat of Minnota Addition Location: 4903 Cedar Lake Road S. Applicant: Erdogan Akguc Case No.: 15-09-S C. Preliminary Plat with Variances and Preliminary PUD Location: 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. Case No.: 15-03-S and 15-04-PUD 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/924-2575 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APRIL 1, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Nicole Mardell, Sean Walther, Ryan Kelley, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of February 25, 2015 and March 4, 2015 Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of February 25, 2015 and March 4, 2015. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-2 (Carper and Peilen abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Zoning Text Amendments relative to Setbacks, Parking and Screening Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 15-10-ZA Nicole Mardell, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. She explained that the amendments are requested in response to the findings of the South Side of Excelsior Boulevard Design Guidelines Study. She noted that some of the proposed changes are appropriate for the City more broadly. She stated that many of the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts share common features with the South Side of Excelsior Blvd., such as small lots, higher traffic streets, and adjacency to residential uses. The three general categories of the proposed amendments are yards, parking and screening. Ms. Mardell provided analysis of proposed changes for side yards in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, parking in all districts, parking in C-1 Zoning Districts and Screening in C-1 Zoning Districts. Commissioner Peilen said she was curious about the proposed requirement for parking lots to be at least eight feet from adjacent residential properties. She said in some cases the alleyways don’t appear to have eight feet. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 1, 2015 Page 2 Ms. Mardell and Sean Walther, Senior Planner, said the existing properties would be allowed to continue as they are until such point they do a major redevelopment or completely re-do their parking lot. Mr. Walther said the city will need to consider those circumstances where it is impossible to provide eight feet. Chair Person asked staff to comment generally on the impact of the changes to parking lots. He asked if the amendment would change the number of stalls. Mr. Walther said the required number of parking stalls would not be changed. The design requirements of the parking lots would change. A slightly narrower drive aisle would be allowed and in the C-1 District only a drive aisle of 22 feet could be provided if a wider stall is provided as well. Mr. Walther added that the 22 foot width does have some precedence in the city. A 22 foot drive aisle is allowed in structured parking ramps. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the width of the lot could limit the number of stalls that could be provided. Mr. Walther responded that was possible. He added that site demonstrations were done as part of the Design Guidelines Study with 9 feet wide stalls as a baseline. Staff is confident it works on the lots on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. Chair Person asked if there is a trend to decrease the number of parking stalls. Mr. Walther responded that there isn’t an intention to reduce the number of parking stalls required. He provided examples of existing flexibility allowed in the code for the number of stalls. Chair Person opened the public hearing. As there was no one present wishing to speak he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carper stated that the Commission has had an opportunity to see the study area. He remarked that the task force and staff did an excellent job addressing the situation. Commissioner Robertson thanked Ms. Mardell for her work and for the great presentation. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission April 1, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the South Side of Excelsior Zoning Amendments. Commissioner Johnston- Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0. 4. Other Business A. 2014 Planning Commission Annual Report and 2015 Work Plan Mr. Walther said the report was provided to the Commission for review and comment. 5. Communications A. 2015 Report to the Community B. Open House April 8 – Southwest LRT Station Design C. Neighborhood Meeting – Former Bally’s Total Fitness site 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. A study session followed at 6:30 p.m. The study topic was Form-Based Code. Submitted by, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Agenda Item 3A 3A. Brewery Taproom – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Case No.: 15-14-ZA Applicant: Jason Schoneman, Steel Toe Brewing Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to Breweries and Taprooms as recommended by staff. REQUEST: Staff is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum amount a Brewery can produce from 3,500 barrels per year to 20,000 barrels per year in the Business Park (BP) and Industrial Park (IP) Zoning Districts. BACKGROUND: St. Louis Park has one brewery (Steel Toe) operating a taproom and selling malt liquor for off- site consumption. Steel Toe began operating in 2011. At their request the city amended the zoning ordinance in 2012 to allow taprooms to operate as an accessory use to a brewery in the Industrial Park and Business Park zoning districts. One of the conditions of the brewery operating in the Industrial Park and Business Park zoning districts is that it cannot exceed a production capacity of 3,500 barrels per year. This maximum was consistent with the limits established by Minnesota Statutes regulating breweries for off-site sales and taprooms. MN Statutes, however, were recently amended to increase the maximum production capacity allowed for breweries with off-sale malt liquor sales from 3,500 barrels per year to 20,000 barrels per year, and breweries that operate taprooms to 250,000 barrels per year. Breweries are also allowed in the General Industrial District; however, they do not have a maximum production capacity. Also, taprooms are not permitted in the General Industrial District. ANALYSIS: PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT: The proposed amendment increases the maximum production capacity for Breweries in the Industrial Park and Business Park Districts from 3,500 barrels per year to 20,000 barrels per year. IMPACT: The applicant states that the increase in production is not significant enough to noticeably change the amount of truck traffic coming to and from the site. All liquor produced is sold to a Agenda Item No 3A. – Brewery – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 2 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 distributor, not directly to individual end users (restaurants and liquor stores), therefore, there are a limited number of trucks coming to the site. Since Steel Toe is only producing 3,500 barrels per year, the distributor’s trucks are leaving the site with a partial load. If production is increased to 20,000 barrels per year, the same trucks will simply leave with a bigger load. LIQUOR LICENSE AMENDMENT: The city liquor license ordinance also limits production to 3,500 barrels per year. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning amendment, then an amendment to the liquor license ordinance will be presented to the City Council for consideration along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation for amending the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Breweries in the Industrial Park and Business Park zoning districts. Attachments: Draft Zoning Amendment Letter from Steel Toe Brewery Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Agenda Item No 3A. – Brewery – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 3 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 ORDINANCE NO.______ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE INCREASING PRODUCTION CAPACITY FOR BREWERIES LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 36 is amended to add the following: ARTICLE IV. ZONING DISTRICTS DIVISION 7. BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT REGULATIONS *** Sec. 36-233. BP business park district. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any BP district may be used for one or more of the following uses if it has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 and complies with the performance standards as stated in Section 36-232 and the conditions stated below: *** (2) Brewery. The conditions are as follows: a. The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 20,000 barrels of malt liquor per year. b. Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. *** DIVISION 8. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS* *** Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district. *** Agenda Item No 3A. – Brewery – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 4 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an I-P district may be used for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-242 and those specified for the use permitted in this subsection: *** (11) Brewery. The conditions are as follows: a. The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 20,000 barrels of malt liquor per year. b. Up to 15% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Adopted by the City Council Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Agenda Item #3B 3B. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition 4903 Cedar Lake Rd. Case No.: 15-09-S Applicant: Erdogan Akguc Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Minnota Addition, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Comprehensive Plan: Office Zoning: High-Density Multiple-Family Residence (RC) Description of Request: The applicant requests approval of a combined Preliminary and Final Plat that plats a currently unplatted property, and combines with approximately 3,600 sf of land subdivided from the neighboring townhome development (Cedar Trails West). Location: Agenda Item No. 3B. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition Page 2 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Background: The subject property is located in the Cedarhurst Neighborhood. The property was previously occupied by an office building. The building was sometimes referred to as the “tent” building because of its unique roof that looked like several tent peaks. The building was removed in 2010, and the parcel has been vacant since. A picture of the building is shown below, along with an aerial photo taken shortly before it was removed. Agenda Item No. 3B. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition Page 3 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 ANALYSIS: Existing Conditions: The property is vacant and unplatted. It is approximately 44,977 square feet in area, and is flat with some trees along the south property line. There are two curb cuts on Cedar Lake Rd. One provides access to a small parking lot on the west side of the property. The parking lot is left over from the office building that previously occupied the property. The other curb cut provided access for the service area of the old building, now the curb cut does not have a purpose. Preliminary Plat: Lot Size: The proposal is to plat an unplatted parcel, and combine with approximately 3,600 square feet subdivided from the neighboring property to the east (Cedar Trails West) which is a townhome development. The existing parcel is irregularly shaped, and the additional property will address part of the odd shape, thereby, making the property better suited for development. The property is zoned RC High-Density Multiple-Family Residence. The minimum lot size for this district is 15,000 square feet. There is only one lot proposed in the plat, and right-of-way will be dedicated for Cedar Lake Road. Additional details are shown in the table below: Existing Conditions: Existing Parcel Size, including right-of-way (r.o.w.): 44,977 sf Proposed land purchase from neighbor 3,600 sf Total land size: 48,577 sf Proposed Plat: Lot 1: 37,722 sf Proposed Cedar Lake Rd r.o.w. dedication: 10,855 sf Agenda Item No. 3B. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition Page 4 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Sidewalk: The subdivision ordinance requires a sidewalk be constructed along all public streets when a property is platted. Therefore, a sidewalk will be constructed along the south side of Cedar Lake Road. There is currently a trail extending to the property from the west. From there, it crosses to the north side of Cedar Lake Road and continues east. The sidewalk that is required by this plat will tie into the trail and continue east on the south side of Cedar Lake Road. Engineering is reviewing the proposed sidewalk to determine if a trail should be required instead of a sidewalk. Park & Trail Dedication: The plat is subject to the park dedication of $1,500 per dwelling unit and trail dedication of $225 per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing a townhome building containing up to 16 dwelling units for a total of $24,000 for park dedication and $3,600 for trail dedication. Cedar Trails West: Cedar Trails West is the name of the townhome association located to the east. This is the development the applicant proposes to purchase land from. Cedar Trails West has sufficient land to maintain all zoning requirements after the proposed land transfer to the Minnota Addition Plat. Cedar Trails West Association supports the proposed application. The Cedar Trails West property is zoned R-4 Multiple Family Residence, and the maximum density allowed is 30 units per acre. The existing lot size is 2.72 acres which allows up to 81 units. After the land transfer, the lot size will be reduced to 2.63 acres which allows up to 78 units. There are 16 dwelling units located on this parcel, well below the allowed maximum even after the land is transferred. The proposed property line located between the Minnota Addition and Cedar Trails West will meet the minimum setback for the existing townhome located in Cedar Trails West. The property line will be located 11 feet, 4 inches from the existing townhome, and the required minimum setback is half the building height, which is 10 feet, 8 inches. Agenda Item No. 3B. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition Page 5 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Proposed Development Plan: If the plat is approved, the applicant intends to construct a townhome building on the parcel. The townhome will be similar in size to the townhomes to the east. The proposed townhome building can be approved administratively with a building permit. Therefore, the only approval required is the application for the Minnota Addition plat. That being said, staff will ensure that the proposed building meets all zoning requirements and that the proposal is presented at the neighborhood meeting and is summarized with this presentation. The building will consist of up to 16 two-level townhome units. Each dwelling unit will have a private entrance directly from the outside. Each unit will also have a private underground garage with stairs providing private access directly into the dwelling unit. The development requires at least 4,526 square feet of Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA), and 5,718 square feet will be provided to the east of the building. The DORA will be improved with play equipment and sidewalks leading to it. The DORA will also be made available to the Cedar Trails West development with a sidewalk leading into the development. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuing the plat, the following conditions shall be met: a. A public sidewalk will be constructed along the entire north property line along Cedar Lake Road. b. Park dedication in the amount of $1,500 per dwelling unit shall be submitted to the City. c. Trail dedication in the amount of $225 per dwelling unit shall be submitted to the City. Attachments: Aerial Photo Preliminary/Final Plat Proposed Development Plan Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Agenda Item No. 3B. Preliminary/Final Plat of Minnota Addition Page 6 Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Aerial Photo Traverse PC Traverse PC Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 15, 2015 Agenda Item #3C 3C. 4900 Excelsior – Preliminary Plat with Variances and Preliminary PUD Zoning Address: 4760, 4900 Excelsior Blvd Case No.: 15-03-S, 15-04-PUD Recommended Action: Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to conditions recommended by Staff. REQUEST: Oppidan Development requests approvals of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD for the properties at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Blvd to allow construction of a six-story, mixed use building that includes 28,228 square feet of commercial (specialty grocery store possibly including a liquor store), 189 apartment units, and structured parking. The PUD is a rezoning of the property under the City’s new PUD ordinance. LOCATION: Site Area: 2.00 acres Current Zoning Districts: MX – Mixed Use, RC – High Density Multiple Family Proposed Zoning District: PUD – Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Plan Designation: MX – Mixed-Use Current Use: Vacant athletic club building, parking ramp & vacant lot Adjacent Land Uses: North: Park Commons Dr, 3-story condominium building, Wolfe Park East: Princeton Ave S, 4-story mixed-use building South: Excelsior Blvd, 1- and 2-story commercial buildings West: Quentin Ave S, 2-story office building BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to redevelop the former Bally Total Fitness block bound by Excelsior Blvd, Quentin Ave S, Princeton Ave S, and Park Commons Dr. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 2 The applicant has purchase agreements with the current owners, LA Fitness and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. The site is part of the Park Commons redevelopment area and located in the Wolfe Park Neighborhood. PUD ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed-Use and the current zoning map contemplates mixed-use and high-density residential development on the property. The proposed PUD would create a new zoning district and zoning regulations for uses and dimensional standards that are unique to this site and the proposed site and building plans. The intent of the Mixed Use land use designation and the City’s Livable Communities design principles is to create compact, pedestrian-scale, mixed-use buildings, typically with retail, service or other commercial uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses on upper floors. Mixed-use is intended to accommodate mixed-income housing, a mix of housing types on the same block, and higher density development. A redevelopment district was established for the Park Commons area originally in 1977 along with a redevelopment concept plan. The current Park Commons Concept Plan was created by the community in the 1990s, including a vision and redevelopment concept focused on creating a “town center” for St. Louis Park. Although a significant portion of this concept plan has been realized over the past 15 years, there are some remaining redevelopment opportunities that will be guided by the Park Commons Concept Plan, including the subject property. The concept plan provides guidance in the form of principal redevelopment goals, land use mix allocations, street types, and development performance standards. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan summarized the Park Commons Concept Plan, including the following: Density shall be considered overall for the entire development, rather than block by block or land use designation by land-use designation. Building heights south of Park Commons Drive will generally be two to four stories, except that a five story residential building may be considered by PUD at the corner of Monterey and Excelsior Blvd. Building heights north of Park Commons Drive will generally be six to eight stories. The actual heights of buildings may vary due to different floor to ceiling heights of different uses. Buildings over four stories in height should be rendered in such a manner as to retain a human scale at the street level and minimize the visual impact of the upper stories. One solution is to set back upper floors. Staff finds that this site is suitable for the proposed mixed-use development and multiple-family housing and meets many of the objectives for the Park Commons redevelopment area. The project will follow the City’s Green Building Policy and it is located in a neighborhood that received LEED-ND certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Ten percent of the units will be affordable to household earning 60% of the area median income which provides a mixed- income development and expands housing choices for the community. The site has convenient access to good bus service, Wolfe Park, and other services and businesses along Excelsior Blvd, and is within biking distance of the SWLRT regional trail and future LRT Beltline station. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 3 The proposed development is a mixed-use building that promotes efficient use of the land, existing infrastructure, and existing roadway system. The plan places the majority of the parking under the building screened from view and utilizes adjacent on-street parking. The plan provides private designed outdoor recreation area amenities for its residents on the second floor and roof of the sixth floor. The building design includes active uses at the pedestrian-level along Excelsior Blvd, including storefront windows, its main entrance, high quality building materials, and other measures to enhance the character at the pedestrian level along Excelsior Blvd. Building and Site Design Analysis: The PUD ordinance requires the City to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, 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 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. (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. [Remainder of page left blank intentionally.] Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 4 ZONING ANALYSIS: The following table provides the development metrics. With a PUD, most of the zoning related concerns can be met. Staff identifies a few items that need additional attention and these are discussed further in the report. Zoning Table. *The applicant requests a reduction based on shared parking opportunities on the site. Factor Required Proposed Use Mixed-use/Residential Mixed-use/Residential Lot Area 2.0 acres 2.0 acres (1.57 after the plat) Density Up to 50 units per acre, or more with a PUD based on the Comprehensive Plan designation 118.9 units per acre Height 30 ft. max., within 60 ft. of R2; 60 ft. max., within 120 feet of R2; No limit on remainder of site Building is approximately 75 ft. tall; plus there are roof top metal trellis elements that rise up to 85 feet tall. Off-Street Parking Parking details provided later in the report. Setbacks N/A for PUD Front (south) – 5 ft. to 10 ft. Side (west) – 5 ft. Side (east) – 1 ft. to 5 ft. Rear (north) – 2.5 ft. to 5 ft. Commercial Use of Ground Floor Area N/A for PUD 28,228 (45%), plus the lobby area and rental office Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A for PUD 0.91 D.O.R.A. 8,311 sq. ft. (12%) Approx. 13,850 sq. ft. (20%) Tree Replacement 222.1 caliper inches ($130 per caliper inch not planted) Approx. 67 caliper inches + Cash-in-lieu ($20,098) Landscaping 217 trees 27 trees 213 shrubs 27 shrubs 211 perennials 78 vines Alternative landscaping The plan provides a partial green roof in the terrace area, and potentially a partial “green wall” Transit service None required Frequently operating bus service Route 12, and 615, 604 Stormwater Required city and watershed standards Stormwater management is provided underground Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 5 Architectural Design Description: The proposed building is six stories tall (75 feet) tall. The building actually has only a partial sixth floor along the south side of the building (Excelsior Blvd side). On the north side it has only 5 levels; However, due to the grade change on the site, the underground parking is exposed on the north side, so the building still appears as 6 stories and 75 feet tall. On the corner of the south elevation there are rooftop metal terraces that extend to up to 85 feet tall. The massing of the building is broken up with wall deviations on the second though 5th and 6th floors. The central portion of these upper floors step back 6 feet from the first floor elevation along Excelsior Blvd and Park Commons Drive. On the Princeton Avenue side it steps back 35 feet and on Quentin it is opens up entirely with a 155 feet setback for the rooftop terrace. There would be upper level decks that hang over these spaces, but overall this approach helps add visual interest to the building and to some degree reduces the impact of the building on the public realm at the pedestrian level. Height: As mentioned previously in the report, the Park Commons Concept Plan provided guidelines that suggested two to four stories was the appropriate building height in this block of the redevelopment area. However, the current RC and MX district zoning allow 6 stories, and the MX district actually promotes six stories or more. The PUD district has the flexibility to allow taller buildings and smaller setbacks, as the City Council deems appropriate. In order to achieve a variety of City goals, including provision of some affordable housing in the building program, the developer has the fifth and partial sixth levels. Limiting the height to five stories along Excelsior Blvd would more in keeping with the heights of other recent developments along the north side of the corridor (Park Commons East-Trader Joe’s, Ellipse, and e2) and would likely make the application more palatable to the surrounding neighborhoods. The actual impact of the height, beyond aesthetics, is not as clear. The shadow study provided by the architect certifies and confirms that the building meets the shadowing requirements. In fact, there are no days out of the year that the building will shadow a neighboring building elevation more than is allowed by code. Pedestrian-level design elements: The grocery store has storefront windows all along Excelsior Blvd and has its primary entrance opening to the public street and sidewalk. There is also a nearby entrance oriented to the main level parking under the building. The apartment lobby entrance and rental office is at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Princeton Avenue and also provides an active presence along the sidewalk. The PUD ordinance will include transparency requirements for the storefront windows along Excelsior Boulevard. The storefront glass wraps around the front of the building along Quentin Avenue near the angled parking; however, here the glass is proposed to be opaque, so there will not be views into the store. A “possible” green wall is shown near this corner, too, but the plans indicate this may change to a graphic image instead of the green wall. Shelving is likely anticipated to be against this interior wall. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 6 On the east side of the building along Princeton, there are staircases that lead up to individual apartment units. These staircases, along with foundation and boulevard plantings add to the pedestrian experience. However, the staircases are also in the public easement and could hinder access and use of the easement area. On the north side of the building, the walls of the lower parking levels are exposed on this side and results in a relative long blank wall. It is good that the parking below is screened, but there is not much visual interest created along the sidewalk. The landscape plan proposes vines along the foundation of this wall to help soften the building and mitigate this. Exterior Materials: The exterior materials include brick, glass, stucco, fiber cement. The building meets the minimum requirements for Class I materials. However, the plans suggest that a burnished block may be substituted for the proposed stucco at the base of the building. The applicant appears to be requesting the burnished concrete block be counted as a Class I material. Burnished concrete block is specifically listed as a Class II material. Staff does not support counting it as Class I. Staff is open to use of burnished block at the building base only if the class I material percentages are held at or above 60% per elevation by increasing the use of Class I materials elsewhere on the facades. Materials: Building materials include stone, brick, and glass on the ground level surrounding the building; and glass and EFIS (stucco panel veneer) on the upper floors. Balconies will be metal. The building provides 62 percent Class 1 materials, and 38 percent class two materials. Density The current zoning of Mixed-Use and High Density Residential zoning districts allow densities of 50 to 75 units per acre. With the PUD zoning district, the density may be increased further. The proposed density is approximately 119 units per acre. The appropriateness of the density can be further evaluated based upon projected parking demand/provision and traffic impacts/mitigation. Both are discussed further later the report. Parking Off-Street Parking Requirement Required Parking Proposed Parking 246 bedrooms 246 spaces Underground spaces (P1, P2 levels) 240 spaces Commercial (28,228 sq. ft.) 113 spaces 1st level off-street (66) and on-street (33) parking spaces 99 spaces Minimum required without reductions 359 spaces Total provided 339 spaces 10% transit reduction (11 spaces ) 10% reduction request (11 spaces) Minimum required with reduction 348 spaces Total provided 339 spaces Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 7 After accounting for the transit service to the site (a 10% reduction in the commercial parking requirement), the plan provides nine fewer stalls than required the parking formulas by the ordinance. Due to the mix of commercial and residential uses, there may be opportunities to share parking between the residential and commercial, since these uses have different peak hours. The developer requests a shared parking reduction of nine parking spaces for the development. The number of stalls that would be available to share may be somewhat limited, due to the desire for secure parking for residents and convenient parking for customers. However, with proper management there is an opportunity to share spaces in the P1 level of the building with employees of the commercial use and possibly accommodate guest parking for the residential use. The City commissioned a shared parking study, at the developer’s expense, that was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants. Based on the information in that study, if approximately 20 parking stalls were allowed to be shared with commercial employees and residential guests on the P1 level, the site would meet the projected demands during the peak periods. The developer has agreed to allow 20 stalls to be shared with the commercial tenant(s), and can provide additional details regarding the management plan later in the review process. A permanent agreement for shared parking and a parking management plan will be required. The plan also provides the locations for bicycle parking as required by City Code requirements. There will be a combination of secured parking for the residents in the building and exterior customer and guest bike parking at the sidewalk level. Access The site can be accessed from all four surrounding streets. There is on-street parking, a bus stop, and sidewalk access, and no direct driveway access onto Excelsior Boulevard. The “commercial” parking lot on the main level has two full access points. One is on Princeton Avenue and the other on Quentin. The parking lot design allows an efficient movement for vehicles through the parking lot. Also, the access to the secured parking for residents is off of Park Commons Drive and separate for the commercial parking. On-street parking is also provided on Quentin Avenue, Park Commons Drive and Princeton Avenue with sidewalk connections around the entire site. The proposed loading area for the grocery store is similar to the Trader Joe’s building with trucks backing up from the street into the loading area off of Quentin Avenue. The depth is sufficient that semi-tractor trailers will not block traffic on Quentin, and shorter panel trucks will not impede the sidewalks. Traffic A traffic study by Spack Consulting was submitted with the application. A copy of the study is attached for your review. Appendices C and D were excluded due to the size of the report. The study concludes that the impact of the proposed development traffic generation will not significantly impact the level of service for the intersections surrounding the site or Excelsior Boulevard. The study concludes that no mitigation is required. The Engineering Department reviewed the study and did not dispute the findings. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 8 Setbacks The plan provides setbacks ranging from five feet to 10 feet on the south side, five feet on the west side, and 1 foot to five feet on the east side, and 2.5 feet to 5 feet on the north side. In a PUD, buildings may be set up to the property line. However, in this case some of the decks, and the staircases along Princeton Avenue, encroach upon drainage and utility easements. Since overhead utilities would be discourages in these locations, staff would be comfortable with allowing the decks to encroach, provided the property owner is responsible for the costs to move/remove the decks if needed for accessing the easements for public purposes. Staff is not comfortable with the staircases that will land within the easement on the east side. These would be too intrusive and does not adequately protect the public use of the easement. Although the stairs are a nice feature for the apartment units, the stairs must either be relocated to eliminate the encroachment or removed from the plan. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) The plan provides 20% of the lot area for DORA. It does so exclusively on private rooftop terraces. It meets and exceeds the DORA requirement. Landscaping The landscaping plan provides 27 of the 217 trees required on the site. It provides 27 of the 213 shrubs required. The plan includes 211 perennial plants and 78 vine plantings on the site as well. All of the trees provided will be street boulevard trees. On three sides the trees will be within grass boulevard. On Excelsior Boulevard the plan proposes to more or less retain the existing trees in grates. Staff makes the following recommendations regarding the tree planting plan. The developer should provide structured soil details for all the landscaped areas, and such details should use best practices to promote tree health and tree growth. The Excelsior Boulevard streetscape should be redesigned to incorporate additional landscaping. Ideally, these changes would eliminate the tree vaults and use structured soils or other best practices to promote tree health. There quite a lot of space available to provide sodded boulevards, foundation plantings, raised planter beds, or a combination thereof. Staff also suggests incorporating some annuals into the landscape plan along the retail frontage of Excelsior Boulevard. The design of these amenities would need to be thoughtfully considered, for maintenance and for maintaining visibility of the storefront and accessibility of the on-street parking. The plan proposes Kentucky Espresso Coffeetrees on the north side of the buildings. This is an attractive tree, but may not do well in the shade from the building. Staff recommends substituting a Boulevard Linden or similar shade tolerant and hearty over story tree. While there are some limited alternative landscaping components provided, additional attention to the street level plantings, as described above, is recommended. Incorporation of some type of public art would also be welcome. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 9 Please note: The L100 Landscape Plan Sheet accurately reflects the developer’s landscape plan. The civil drawings still reflect a previous version of the landscape plan and will be corrected before the City Council meeting. Tree Replacement: A number of public and private trees will be removed to accommodate the planned development. The tree replacement requirement is 222.1 caliper inches. The proposed planting plan provides 67 caliper inches. Therefore, as currently designed, a $20,098 fee for cash-in-lieu of plantings would be collected and directed to the City’s tree fund. Waste Storage The trash is proposed to be managed inside the building. The trash and recycling room locations for the residential appear to be located in an inaccessible area and more details are needed regarding how this will be handled, including the collection days. A dumpster location for the commercial use should also be clarified, though it is assumed it would be incorporated into the loading area, under the building, near Quentin Avenue. Hours of waste collection is limited by the City’s licensing rules. In addition, the City Council has a goal to increase recycling in multiple-family buildings. The developer should confirm that both trash and recycling chutes will be provided in the building. Utilities The Inspections and Engineering Department have provided a number of comments to the developer regarding the proposed storm water management and utility plans. The developer has responded preliminarily to the comments and is preparing additional information and revised plans to address the concerns. Resolving these issues in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer and Building Official must be a condition of approval. Stormwater from the site will be stored underground and actually under the building. The plan requires review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) prior to Final PUD approval. A copy of the Engineering Review memorandum is attached for your information. PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES ANALYSIS: The preliminary plat combines two lots into one new parcel, dedicates right-of-way to surrounding streets where street easements currently exist, and it provides drainage and utility easements surrounding the parcel adjacent to the proposed right-of-way. Lot: Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons West will have a lot area of 1.59 acres. This lot is proposed to be developed with a mixed-use building with 28,228 square feet of ground floor commercial and 189 multiple-family residential units with parking under the building. The lot covers an entire block bound on four sides by public roadways. Right-of-Way Dedication: The area dedicated to surrounding streets replaces existing road easements. Hennepin County reviewed the proposal and did not provide any comments. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 10 Utility Easements: The plan provides a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement as required by the Subdivision Ordinance adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard. Subdivision Variance Application: The applicant is requesting variances to allow 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along Quentin Avenue South, Park Commons Drive, and Princeton Avenue South, instead of 10 feet wide easements. The Developer provided the following arguments to support the request in the application the variances are justified for the following reasons: 1. The design as proposed is consistent with the properties in the immediate area. The sidewalk width, landscaping, on-street parking and transit connections keep the integrity of Excelsior Boulevard and the surrounding streets while continuing the walking, biking and transit corridor accessibility to City residents. No negative impacts are apparent by granting this request. 2. The challenges to create viable access both to parking and pedestrian, adequate circulation and new stormwater facilities (no on-site stormwater exists today on either site), the need to keep active streets and connections, coupled with the cost of the land and demolition of the current building (including abatement costs) drive this request. 3. The current site conditions and grades create added access challenges to this site. For example, if the full 10 feet were provided, the ramping into the Quentin Avenue side would become steeper (over 5% grade) to meet the current street elevation and the building finished floor, creating a very undesirable condition for residents and retail patrons. Similar issues would be created for the access on Park Commons and Princeton and there would also be impacts in the delivery area to the retail. There would also be potential conflicts in the stairway areas leading to the exits for residents. 4. In addition, the overall building layout for common space would be impacted. By shrinking the footprint to provide the required depth, common facilities (roof green deck, dog run, etc.) would be minimized and not meet the needs of the residents or desires of the development and the City. 5. The benefits to the community and surrounding properties are many. Continued connectivity, added services, new stormwater facilities on-site (no on-site stormwater facility exists today), added affordable housing units in the area and a new, modern facility to anchor this gateway location will enhance the look and feel of the area. 6. The requested changes would have very little impact to the City for the use of the area. Utilities are primarily on the north and south sides of the building and impacts are very minimal. Evaluation: City staff supports the requested Preliminary Plat with variance based on the grounds above; however, the support is contingent upon several amendments to the plans. Staff has remaining concerns regarding certain elements of the proposed site, building and utility plans that relate somewhat to the easement areas provided. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 11 Staff is concerned that certain private improvements are shown within public drainage and utility easements and public right-of-way. Specifically, on Quentin, a grease trap is shown in Quentin Avenue right-of-way. Along Princeton Avenue, there are encroachments into the proposed drainage and utility easements including stairways to individual units and long private service lines for communications and gas. As currently designed, these encroachments will hinder the public purpose of these easements and right-of-way and staff opposes these encroachments. Also, upper level decks extend over the drainage and utility easements. Staff is less concerned with these encroachments, provided an encroachment agreement is entered into that makes the property owner responsible for the costs of removing such encroachments or similar costs for public use and maintenance of the easement. Park and Trail Dedication: The proposed development would increase the intensity of the development on the property. The City will require park and trail dedication fees to be collected for the residential units that are being added to the site. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will be asked to make a recommendation regarding collecting cash-in-lieu of land. The current park dedication fee is $1,500 per dwelling unit and the trail dedication fee is $225 per dwelling unit. PUBLIC INPUT: The Developer held a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, April 8, to present the proposed development, respond to questions, and learn about resident’s concerns. The meeting was well- attended with approximately 60 people. The major concerns expressed at neighborhood meeting included: 1) traffic, including congestion on Excelsior Boulevard, capacity of the Quentin Avenue intersection, and cut through traffic in the neighborhoods to the south and on Park Commons Boulevard; 2) adequate parking and access; 3) the building height, including the fit in the area, the impact to the feel along the sidewalks, block views/sun, and general density of the development; and 4) the sustainability of the market demand for more apartments and another grocery store in this area. Other issues that were mentioned included hours of operation for the grocery store, the similarity of the building design to Ellipse on Excelsior and other recent developments, lighting impacts, and property tax impacts if the City provides financial assistance to the developer. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances, with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the City Council resolution, Official Exhibits, Development Agreement and City Code. 2. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site. 3. Tree replacement and park and trail dedication fees shall be paid to the City of St. Louis Park. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 12 4. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. 5. A permanent shared parking agreement between the commercial and residential uses shall be recorded upon filing of the final plat and prior to issuance of building permits for the development. Said agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 6. A development agreement shall be executed between the City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum: a. A performance guarantee for 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements, placement of iron monuments at property corners, landscaping and irrigation. b. The applicant shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting and reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. c. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding building demolition), the following conditions shall be met: 1) City approval of the final plat. 2) Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. 3) Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner(s). 4) Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 5) A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. 6) All necessary permits must be obtained. 7) A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (sidewalks, utilities, street lights, landscaping, irrigation, etc.) and the private site landscaping. 7. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner(s). c. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. e. All necessary permits must be obtained. f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (sidewalks, utilities, street lights, landscaping, irrigation, etc.) and private site landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD, recognizing that there are a several issues that need to be addressed. The recommended conditions of approval include: 1. Approval of the Final PUD ordinance by the City Council. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the PUD ordinance, Official Exhibits, Development Agreement and City Code. 3. Burnished concrete block shall not be substituted as a Class I material. Burnished concrete may only be used if the Class I material percentages remain at 60% or more on each elevation by increasing the use of Class I materials elsewhere on the facades. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 13 4. A permanent agreement for shared parking and a parking management plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council review of the Final PUD. 5. The plan shall be amended to remove the proposed stairways that encroach upon the required drainage and utility easement. 6. The proposed landscaping plan shall be amended as described in the staff report prior to City Council review. 7. The plans shall be revised to adequately address the drainage and utility issues described in the Engineering Department review memorandum prior to City Council review. 8. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property owner. c. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. d. All necessary permits must be obtained. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the City's Assent Form and the Official Exhibits. b. A development agreement shall be executed between the Developer and City that addresses, at a minimum: 1. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. 2. Participation by the property owner in the special service district relating to maintenance of streetscape improvement within the public right-of-way along Excelsior Boulevard. 3. Installation and on-going maintenance at Developer’s expense of on-street loading and streetscape improvements along all public streets adjacent to the site. Final plans for said improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to construction. 4. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 125% of the costs of all public improvements (street, sidewalks, utility, street lights, landscaping, etc.), placement of iron monuments at the property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. 5. The developer shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. 6. Final construction plans for all public improvements shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 7. Building material samples and colors must be submitted to the City for review. 10. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends. No construction activity shall occur on Sundays and holidays. Limited exceptions to these construction hours may be permitted if the City issues a noise permit. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhood properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. Meeting of April 15, 2015 4900 Excelsior Blvd – Preliminary Plat with Variances & Preliminary PUD Page 14 e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the Director of Engineering (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer and general contractor shall implement and enforce a parking plan for construction equipment and vehicles, and workers’ vehicles, which minimizes or eliminates parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. g. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. h. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. i. Pedestrian access along Excelsior Boulevard and to the existing bus stop shall be maintained during construction. Any expected disruptions shall be limited in duration and scope, and communicated to the City, County, and Metropolitan Transit well in advance. 11. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit public improvements and private site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 12. All utilities shall be buried underground. 13. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. 14. The materials used in and placement of all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. ATTACHMENTS: • Proposed Zoning Map Amendment • Draft PUD Ordinance • Engineering Department Review Memorandum • Traffic Study (excluding Appendices C & D) • Shared Parking Study • Development Metrics – C1 • Existing Conditions (Land Survey) • Preliminary Plat - PP2 • Site Plan - C3 • Site Plan - A001 • Floor Plans - A002 Parking Levels P01 –P02 • Floor Plans - A003 Levels 1 & 2 • Floor Plans - A004 Levels 3-6 • Elevations - A005 Perspective from Excelsior & Quentin • Elevations - A006 South (Excelsior) & West (Quentin) Elevations • Elevations - A007 North (Park Commons Dr) & East (Princeton) Elevations • Elevations – A008 North & South Internal Courtyard Elevation • Exterior Lighting Plan – E001 • Landscape Plan – L100 • Shadow Study Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor 0 0.250.125 Miles Proposed Rezoning of 4900 Excelsior Blvd Site Location Site Location ¯ Zoning PUD - Planned Unit Development POS - Parks & Open Space R1 - Single Family Residential R2 - Single Family Residential R3 - Two-Family Residential R4 - Multiple-Family Residential RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential MX - Mixed Use C1 - Neighborhood Commercial C2 - General Commercial BP - Business Park O - Office IP - Industrial Park IG - General Industrial Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Mixed-Use/ High Density Residential PUD 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___-15_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-331 AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4760 AND 4900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 15-03-S and 15-04-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use. Sec. 3. The legal description for the property this PUD applies to is as follows: Outlot H, PARK COMMONS EAST, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And: Commencing at a point in the center line of Excelsior Avenue distant 313.25 feet Northeasterly from its intersection with the Westerly line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of said Excelsior Avenue a distance of 310.0 feet; thence Northeasterly along a line parallel to said center line to the most Westerly comer of Registered Land Survey No. 832; thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of said Registered Land Survey and its extension Southeasterly to the center line of Excelsior Avenue; thence Southwesterly along said center line to the place of beginning; all in said Section 7, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (To be platted and legally described as) Lot 1, Block 1, Park Commons West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2 Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-331is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-331. PUD-4900 Excelsior. (a). Purpose. The purpose of a PUD District is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater flexibility in the development of land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The intent of this section is to: (1) Allow for the greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land development. (2) Promote higher standards of site and building design. (3) Promote a more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high-quality development at a lesser cost. (4) Provide for the establishment 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) Allow modifications to the strict application of regulations of conventional zoning districts that are in harmony with the goals, policies and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. (6) Encourage a more creative and efficient use of land. (7) Preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics, including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and access. (8) Promote environmental sustainability in the development of land, building construction and building operations. (9) Ensure integrated pedestrian facilities to and within a PUD district. (10) Provide for improved connections to mass transit facilities. (11) Encourage an increase in the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing. (12) Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under this Chapter. 3 (b) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD signed official exhibits and the following provisions. (1) The property shall be developed with 189 multiple family dwelling units and 28,228 square feet of commercial space. (2) Affordable housing units are included in the residential portion with 20 units reserved as affordable at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). (3) Parking will be provided in parking ramps and on-street. Three-hundred thirty- nine (339) parking spaces will be provided: 240 spaced for residential units, 66 spaces for commercial uses, and 33 on-street spaces. (4) The maximum building height will be 75 feet in six floors, plus an additional 10 feet for roof top metal trellis elements. (5) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area based on private developable land area. (c) Permitted Uses (1) Multiple family uses. (2) Commercial uses. Commercial uses on the first floor, limited to the following: offices, medical or dental office, adult day care, group day care/nursery school, group home/nonstatutory, banks without drive-up facilities, food service, private entertainment (indoor), retail shops, service, showrooms and studios. a. All parking requirements must be met for each use. b. Hours of operation for retail uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. c. No drive up facilities are allowed. d. Restaurants are not allowed (3) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to the following: education/academic, library, museums/art galleries, indoor public parks/open space, police service substations, post office customer service facilities, public studios and performance theaters. 4 (d) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted use and not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use. (2) Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district. (3) Catering, if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store or retail bakery. (4) No outdoor uses or storage allowed. (f) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance must be met, including but not limited to outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping and all screening requirements. (2) All trash handling and loading areas must be inside of the building and screened from view. (3) Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with the following conditions: a. Pylon signs are not permitted; b. Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian/bicycle or automobile circulation and visibility; c. Pedestrian-scale signs visible from public sidewalks shall be encouraged. Such signs shall be no more than three feet in vertical dimension unless flush with the building wall; and d. Maximum allowable numbers, sizes and heights shall be regulated by section 36-362 except as specifically modified by the redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement at the sole discretion of the city council. (4) Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential facades located in the Mixed-Use building facing Excelsior Boulevard: a. Façade Transparency. Windows and doors shall meet the following requirements: 1. For street-facing facades, no more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signage. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. 2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. Display windows may be used to meet the transparency requirement. 5 (5) Awnings. a. Awnings must be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. b. Backlit awnings are prohibited. (6) Use of Sidewalk. A business may use that portion of a sidewalk extending a maximum of five feet from the building wall for the following purposes, provided a six-foot minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue is maintained between obstructions on public sidewalks and provided that all activity is occurring on private property: a. Display of merchandise. b. Benches, planters, ornaments and art. c. Signage, as permitted in the zoning ordinance. d. Dining areas may extend beyond five feet of the building, provided eight feet minimum horizontal clearance along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue is maintained between the obstructions on the sidewalk. Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 15-03-S and 15-04-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing April 15, 2015 First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council ___________ City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2, 2015 TO: Sean Walther, Senior Planner FROM: Phillip Elkin, Engineering Department RE: 4900 Excelsior Boulevard Plan Review Comments We have reviewed the plans prepared by Kimley Horn dated March 9, 2015. Based upon this review we have the following comments and recommendations: 1. Sheet C2.0 –All existing utilities which will be abandoned or removed must be disconnected and capped at the main. Restoration will be required within City ROW. Match existing road section and curb. Please show on the plan the limits of excavation and how this will be restored. A traffic control plan meeting MUTCD standards and approved by the City will be required for removing and installing the new services to the property. 2. Sheet C3.0 a. Stairways and trees/planters will not be permitted in the drainage and utility easement b. There needs to be a minimum 6’ width sidewalk clear of obstructions such as landscaping and decorative lighting. c. The existing crosswalk along Excelsior Boulevard, Princeton Avenue, Quentin Avenue and Park commons Drive should be verified to determine if it is ADA compliant. This sidewalk should be replaced according to City Standards if not compliant. 3. Sheet C4.0 a. The storm sewer outlet pipe will not be permitted to be constructed as shown. All bends and change of direction must be accomplished with a MH. The outlet pipe will not be permitted in the ROW as shown. The pipe should be relocated to within the property limits to minimize the impact and footprint in the public ROW. b. Please include additional elevation marks along the curb on Quentin, Park Commons Drive, Excelsior and Princeton to demonstrate how the stormwater drainage will maneuver around the driveway entrances and parking stalls. 4. Sheet C4.1 a. The cleanout and access points to underground stormwater treatment area need to be inside the next to the unit and out of the public ROW. 5. Sheet C4.3- a. The stormwater details should identify an emergency overflow route in the event that a rainfall event or obstruction in the underground system. 6. Sheet C5.0- a. The proposed grease trap is not allowed to be located in the ROW and must be moved inside the property and out of the d/u easement. b. The sanitary service connection needs to be revised. All bends must be accomplished with a manhole. c. The drainage and utility easement is meant for private utility main lines not services lines. The electrical, gas and fiber optic service lines may cross the easement to access the property but not to the extent shown. 7. Stormwater Management Plan a. The stormwater management plan proposes to switch the primary discharge point of the development from a manhole on the northwest corner of the site to a catch basin on the northeast site corner. While both drainage systems discharge into Wolf Lake, the proposed connection was not built to accommodate this increase in flow. While the proposed discharge rate meets the overall rate control requirements, the discharge rate to this catch basin is tripled in the 10 year event. The intent of the rule is to relieve pressure off already taxed storm sewer pipes. The applicant can either reduce the discharge to the NE catch basin to 1.10 cfs for the 100 year event or re-route the storm sewer to the northwest corner with the 6.2cfs 100yr discharge described in the plan. b. Provide rational method calculations to show that the storm sewer has been designed for a 10 year event. Provide a copy of the calculations used for the water quality requirement. This must meet NPDES permit requirements as well. Details of the underground infiltration system must be provided in the plans. Please provide details on the roof drain connections. c. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is required and an NPDES construction permit is also required. d. The future maintenance of all storm water detention areas shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s), including periodic compliance documentation as required by the City. Storm water facility maintenance responsibilities shall be written as a legal covenant into the property ownership as approved by the City Attorney. 8. The City of St. Louis Park Utilities Division (952-924-2558) shall be contacted at least 48-hours prior to any water-shut offs, sewer connections, excavations, or any other work related to the City’s utility system. The contractor shall also be responsible for protecting the existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer system during construction, including the cost of removing and cleaning of any debris in the lines both during and after completion of construction.          !" !# $                                                                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    "# $%&    '()*+)  ,   ')-)+.(                                        !"  #$% & !'        $    () #*+  !    '                , -./0      !'   1 ! '      %0..       ,$% 23 !! $ 0 !!$ ! ! '       ,             4          !      ,     ./0     ! ! '    $  //       ()                            !     5              %              !                !"    # "  $  %  $$   # & '  $$  ( ( $$  "   ) ) *%  "   + ,"   -    . +  .       /"  0  %  * 1 " $   2 3  &  /"  0 .) " $   2 3  )  /" # 0 ! "  $$ 4"   ,  /" & 0  *% -5         6                       !"  #$% & ! (                 %                  !'         $   () #*+  !  '                 5!                            %                   !      ' 4      1 ! 6    $       ! ! +        4       ! ! +,  $    !  ! 7      %!  '     1 !         !     #    ! #$(   + #     ! #$(   +    89   !    :    ! #$(   + ;    ! #       .      !"      '                    <=(  =,> !"  #$%& !'     $#$(   +   %     , %#     < 6  >!  '      '  6     !          '              !'          !5     #$(   + ,      $! '    %   ,            #   %, $   8        $!'          $ , $    #$(   + %4     !          ,6 . !  '     $     00  !'    $          .3  ! '        $    //  !  6        %          ./?!'     ./0%    !   #  "  $  %  $$      !"#          =(  =,!@        , ,           ! '     ?   !   & + '   <&+5'>  %    ./%?//      !     %#   %#$(   +  ,        !'            /!      .%//         &+5'  !'          %      ,            ,      !  '                 ,                 !'    #         ,  8     !' ,         , ,      ,          !         , 6      !  $  @    ,            ,$   5 ./3!*    %               $    ,        !'!!$      , 21/ 1/!!'!!$            , ?1// 01//!!'!!$   #$(   +   , 31// ?1//!! #   313? ?13?!!   !  '           ! 3      1(  A %(            ,             !@    B"     C  $               %   %     ! "       <"5 >       , <  ,    > ,  "      6 <"5  6>        , <      >! "5  +                 ', (   ! @       "5  ! 5         "5  6 ,             "5  +! '            "5    <          A %(>!' "5             %       !  ' "5                 ,' !'                   ,  6 !'       , "5     !'"5      ,  ,   D@ '75'& ,!     ,       ! '    "5      % ,             %      ! '              "5  (   ,          "5 + !   /"  0  %  * 1 " $   2 3   7  * 7  *    8  (<> (<>    8#  <> <> #$(   +8#  <> <> #$(   +8  <> <> '   "        !'    <  > "      ,    !    8 9  /"      ! 8  /" ?  &  '  $$    %       ,                 ! "     #  !  !     $         8      ,      %        ,  $        !  "    $ !  !     ! '                   1  %      %        !  2   /      !!$ !     3      !!$ !  @                       ,   ,    !' %    ,  ,    %              ,           !'             8      !  '    ,         !'         ,  $                %'           ,  ,!!!! $  !@ % </E>                 !              9   <?E>% #$ (    +  </E>%       </E>!'     6 3!  '     ,     ,      ! &   %         ./0% $  , ,      !'  ,  ,              !'&+5'   ./  , 4  =(  /!'   ./   ,%&+5' 4 , /E 0      ! *      , %      ,    /!?          ! '                %   ,< ,    >,      , $!    '    ,     ./0 ;         !';       ,      ,    ! '              ;       !' ./0  $      ,          ! (  $$  "       '   '"5    ./0;             ,' .!'                     ,           ./0    !'           , ,      ,             !'                           ! '             ./0 $        ,    ,    "5      !'"5     ,  ,.//   D@ '75'& ,!'  "5      % ,                   % !  /"  0 .) " $   2 3   7  * 1 7  * 1 :" " :" "    8   (<> (<> (<> (<>    8#   <> <> <> <> #$(   +8#   <> <> <> <> #$(   +8   <> <> <> <>   8  8 <> 8 <> #$(   +8   8 <> 8 <> #  8  8 <> 8 <> '   "        !'    <  > "      ,    !  2  '  .  ,        ,  ;         %   ,              !'     "5  ,       ,             8        , 4       "5 ./0!!$     !'        ,  9?              !@  % ,                         !@      ,            !7%           !  ;                             !  '        ,    &+5'  !'   ,     ./0 ;          ,' !'    ,              !'     '   ,    4             !  /" # 0 ! "  $$ 4"   -  %  %     ; %.) :"  4" <<<.) "      :       .2%.//F .%///./%?//GG.%??/ %??/ .%//     ;        %?//F /%///.%//G .%.?/ .%?/ 3%0//            %?//F /%///%?/G .%/// 3?/ .%3?/  D  7  ; ?/ H ( ("   !"  #$(   #  G.//9   + 'D   1&+5''&   GG./   + 'D   1&+5''&   GGG;              !&  ,  $      % 4  , !    %#$(   + #             &+5'       ,       !        %     $               ! '       .// %?/     #$(   + %    !'        0?/ 2?/       #           ! '             ,  ,     ,     ! )  *%  "   !           %$    ,  !'     $      00  !'  $     .3  !'      $    //  ! ()    !"  #$ $            !6   %     !6    %       .?/             ?/  !'(  ,   $   ,4    4   $! '  3  ,  $         (   ! '      $       $  ! 9   /" & 0  *% -5          9  =7   *% 7    *%    I 8"  .0  ?2.  .9%2 6 .0 3 9 .0 3 99 '  ?9 39 7    '  5   </E> ?3?  0 .2  33 . >   " 6) #,&         ./  .?  $!&         4    ! %  !  $       ,                             ! & "   '!  !'             1    .    $   ,$%.?   %.3/  !  ?   /    $   ,$!  ' $     ,      $ ,  !        %           $,    $!  '    ?    $    /          $!= , %    %      ,     !          ,        ?    $      .  %,           $ 4  $!  @       ,      %  $  ,     ,        ! /  , "   -   '$              ,  -   ./0        ! '    1 ! '      %0..       ,$% 23 !!$   !!$ ! ! '       ,         4        !        ,        ./0      ! ! '    //  $      ()                           !  5             %             !  +  '% *&+ ,-     " "  " '  ,!  &   #&   &./0;     #&./0;     &./0    #&./0                 1Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-Use Appendix A - Figures   2Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-UseAppendix A - Figures      3Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-Use Appendix A - Figures                              ! "   ! #"     ! "   ! #" 4Traffic Impact Study A Excelsior Blvd Mixed-UseAppendix A - Figures Daily VolumesDAILYENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBYRATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXITApartment220 1,000 GFA 183.0 6.65 50% 50% 15% 183 0%0 517 517Grocery Store850 1,000 GFA 29.8 102.24 50% 50% 15% 457 0%0 1,294 1,294TOTALS6390 1,811 1,811AM Peak HourAM ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBYRATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXITApartment220 1,000 GFA 183.0 0.51 20% 80% 11% 10 0%014 70Grocery Store850 1,000 GFA 29.8 3.40 62% 38% 11% 11 0%057 33TOTALS21071 103PM Peak HourPM ENTER EXIT INTERNAL INTERNAL PASSBY PASSBYRATE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS ENTER EXITApartment 220 1,000 GFA 183.0 0.62 65% 35% 15% 17 0% 0 65 31Grocery Store850 1,000 GFA 29.8 9.48 51% 49% 15% 42 0%0 123 117TOTALS590 188 148NOTES:1. GFA = Gross Floor Area2. All trip generation rates based on "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition unless otherwise noted.3. Reduction for internal trips (Internal Percent) is based on "Trip Generation Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2nd Edition.4. No reduction made for passby trips due to the location of the site accesses. Most passbys will likely be from Excelsior Blvd, so they are just treated as new trips.5. A.M. Trip Generation is for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7 and 9 a.m.).6. P.M. Trip Generation is for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.).NEW TRIPSLAND USEITECODE #DEVELOPMENTUNITS (GFA)QUANTITYNEW TRIPSLAND USEITECODE #DEVELOPMENTUNITS (GFA)QUANTITYNEW TRIPSLAND USEITECODE #DEVELOPMENTUNITS (GFA)QUANTITYTable B1Forecast Trip GenerationAppendix B - Trip Generation TableTraffic Impact StudyB1Excelsior Blvd Mixed-Use April 3, 2015 Mr. Sean Walther Senior Planner CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Re: 4900 Excelsior Boulevard – St. Louis Park, MN Shared Parking Analysis Walker Project # 21-4092.00 Dear Mr. Walther, Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) is pleased to submit the findings that resulted from the Shared Parking Analysis prepared for the 4900 Excelsior Boulevard mixed-use Development (the “Development”) in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. INTRODUCTION The proposed Development will reside on the former site of Bally Total Fitness on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard. The site is bound by Quentin Avenue S on the west, Park Commons Drive on the north and Princeton Avenue on the east. Three vehicular access points are planned, with resident parking access proposed on the north off Park Commons Drive and access for grocery store and resident guest parking planned off Quentin Avenue on the west and off Princeton Avenue on the east. Additionally, there is a bus stop located on the southwest corner of the Development that serves patrons traveling eastbound, as well as a second bus stop on the northeast corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue S that serves customers traveling westbound. The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) engaged Walker to assist them to determine the number of parking spaces needed to serve the Development, assuming the effects of the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking1. An aerial view of the proposed site is shown on the following page in (Figure 1). 1 Shared Parking, second edition, ULI-Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, Mary Smith, 2005 1660 South Highway 100 Suite 424 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 952.595.9116 Fax: 952.595.9516 www.walkerparking.com Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 2 Figure 1: 4900 Excelsior Boulevard – Proposed Development Site Source: Bing Maps LAND USES Based upon Walker’s discussion with the City, at full build-out the Development will contain 183 residential units, a 28,200 ± square foot specialty grocery store and possibly a liquor store. We utilized this information to develop a Shared Parking demand model that depicts the approximate parking supply of spaces needed to accommodate the projected peak-hour parking demand for the site. PARKING SUPPLY The inset table details the parking supply proposed by Oppidan Investment Company (the “Developer”), to accommodate the anticipated peak-hour parking demand generated by the Development. In total, 339 spaces are planned; 33 on street, 66 in a surface lot adjacent to the site, and 240 in a below-grade parking structure. Location Supply On-Street 33 Surface Lot 66 P1 172 P2 45 Tandem 23 Total Supply 339 Parking Supply (projected) Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 3 ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT Historically, city planners calculate parking demand for each land use as a stand-alone entity; assuming that each use requires an independent supply of spaces. This action typically guarantees code requirements that result in a parking surplus. In reality and contrary to the estimated code requirement, fluctuating patterns of demand typically allow different land uses to share some or all of the same parking spaces; thereby, reducing the total supply needed to support development. Moreover, the more the individual utilization patterns of land uses differ from each other, the more complimentary they are to sharing the available parking supply. For example, office and hotel components are complimentary, as they experience peak demand periods at different times of the day, on different days of the week. A comparison of the zoning code requirement, as calculated by Walker, to the weekday (398 ± spaces) and weekend day (400 ± spaces) unadjusted parking demand calculation established using the Shared Parking methodology is included below in Table 1. Pursuant to the City code, the grocery/liquor store will require one (1) space per 250 gross square feet and the residential component will require one (1) space per bedroom. Furthermore, the code allows a transit reduction of 10% for commercial uses that are located within one-quarter mile of a transit stop. The code also allows the on street spaces immediately adjacent to the site to count toward the minimum parking supply on a one to one basis, as well as for a reduction for Shared Parking, if supporting data is provided. Walker’s estimate of the code requirement for the Development, assuming a transit reduction, is 348 ± spaces as shown below. Table 1: Unadjusted Parking Demand/ St. Louis Park Zoning Code (estimated) Source: St. Louis Park Zoning Code, Walker Parking Consultants (estimated) Land Use Unit 2 Base Ratio Unit Demand Base Ratio Units Demand Base Ratio Units Demand Specialty Grocery 28,228 3.50 /ksf GLA 99 3.70 /ksf GLA 104 4.00 /ksf GLA 113 Employee 0.60 17 0.50 14 Residential Guests 189 0.10 /unit 19 0.10 /unit 19 Studio/Efficiency 4 1.00 /unit 4 1.00 /unit 4 1.00 /eff unit 4 1 bedroom 128 1.40 /unit 179 1.40 0.00 179 1.00 /1br unit 128 2 bedroom 57 1.40 /unit 80 1.40 0.00 80 2.00 /2 br unit 114 Subtotal Customer/Guest 118 123 Subtotal Employee/Resident 280 277 SUB TOTAL 359 less Transit allowance (10% of commercial)(11) TOTAL 398 400 348 Notes: 1 Unadjusted demand per Shared Parking. 2 Unit of measure; square feet for grocery, number of units for residential component. Weekdays 1 Weekends 1 Local Zoning Rquirement Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 4 PARKING DEMAND RATIOS The base parking demand ratios used in Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking were developed by observing hourly accumulations of vehicles around standalone land-uses during the course of a typical year (365 consecutive days) and identifying design conditions for weekdays as well as for a weekend day. At the peak-hour of the year a comparison was made between the total number of cars parked and a designated key unit of measure specific to each land-use (e.g. square footage for many land-uses, rooms for hotels or bedrooms per residence). Additionally, some ratios were supplemented through added fieldwork. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed Development, as well as potential variations in operating hours and peak parking demand times associated with the proposed grocery/liquor store, a Shared Parking analysis should prove beneficial in assessing the projected peak-hour parking demand for the site. Given the above, to prepare this analysis we utilized the mixed use parking standards established in Shared Parking to project the approximate peak-hour parking demand; moreover, we applied both month and time of day adjustments for each land use to the individual parking ratios. The ratios used for analysis are shown in the following table. Table 2: Base Parking Demand Ratios Source: Walker Parking Consultants We used the base ratios shown above and considered the following three factors when developing the Shared Parking model: 1) Non-captive Ratio. Non-captive ratios are typically expressed as a percentage of users who create no incremental parking demand when visiting more than one land use on the same trip (e.g. an office employee that walks to a retailer to shop or eat lunch or a resident shopping at the grocery store). Overall, the effect of the captive market can be significant, and the use of non-captive factors ensures that patrons are not counted twice in the overall estimated parking demand. The non-captive ratios assumed for this analysis assume that 3% of the residents are captive with regard to using the specialty grocery/liquor store. This assumption is based on observations and shared use studies compiled over time at other mixed-use Developments throughout North America. Land Use Visitor Emp./User Visitor Emp./User Unit Source Weekday Weekend Specialty Grocery 3.50 0.60 3.70 0.50 /ksf GLA 5 4.10 4.20 Residential : Studio 0.10 1.00 0.15 1.00 /unit 4 1.10 1.15 Residential: 1 Bedroom 0.10 1.40 0.10 1.40 /unit 4 1.50 1.50 Residential: 2 Bedroom 0.10 1.40 0.10 1.40 /unit 4 1.50 1.50 Source: 4. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Parking Washington DC: National Parking Association 5. Field study of Whole Foods (8 locations), Trader Joes (4 locations) and Wild Oats (2 locations). Weekday Weekend Total Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 5 2) Presence Factor - Presence is expressed as a percentage of the peak potential demand modified for time of day and month of year, which can have a significant effect on demand at a mixed-use Development. For example, a 10,000 sf retail store has a peak demand of about 36 spaces on a weekday and 40 spaces on a weekend day during the peak-hour (11:00 AM); while the same store is unlikely to project any parking demand at 11:00 PM. 3) Driving Ratio - Driving ratio represents the percentage of users arriving at the site by means other than a personal vehicle. According to the U.S. Census “Journey to Work” statistics shown in the inset table, about eighty-seven percent (87%) of the St. Louis Park residents drive to work. Typically, adjustments made to the driving ratio mirror the “Journey to Work” statistics for the demographic area. However, if the proposed land-use(s) are service oriented, similar to the grocery/liquor store proposed for the Development, an additional adjustment of -5% is applied to the driving ratio. This assumes that service employees are more likely to utilize public transportation or carpool to work rather than drive; which differs from office workers that may require the higher drive ratio represented in the Journey to Work statistics. The various adjustments made to the base parking demand ratios, in an effort to render project specific projections, are shown in the following table. Table 3: Adjustments to Base Ratios for Driving and Captive Users Source: Walker Parking Consultants Using the land-use data provided by the City, Walker developed the Shared Parking model detailed in the next section, which projects the approximate number of spaces needed to provide adequate parking on weekdays and weekend days during peak-hour demand conditions. Drive to Work Drive Alone 78.5% Carpool 8.7% Sub-Total - Drive 87.2% Other Means Public Transportation 6.1% Taxi 0.3% Bicycle 0.4% Walk 2.0% Work at Home 4.0% Sub Total - Other 12.8% Total 100.0% Journey to Work - St. Louis Park, MN Land Use Quantity Unit Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Specialty Grocery 28,228 GLA 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 97% 97% Employee 82% 82% 82% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% Studio/Efficiency 4 units 97% 97% 97% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 bedroom 128 units 97% 97% 97% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 bedroom 57 units 97% 97% 97% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% Driving Ratio Weekday Weekend Non Captive Ratio Weekday Weekend Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 6 SHARED PARKING Walker has conducted numerous studies and consulted with leading organizations such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ULI and the International Council of Shopping Centers to determine appropriate parking demand ratios for use when developing Shared Parking models. Parking demand is influenced by the time of year, such as when the volume of patronage for a retail establishment peaks during the holiday season and decreases rapidly thereafter. Retailers typically report peak annual activity for the two weeks prior to Christmas, and during this time parking demand may equal 100 percent of the peak projections for a particular site. Inversely, office demand often decreases during the same period, as employees are often absent or away on vacation. These variations by time of day and time of year were assumed for this analysis and applied to our Shared Parking model. Finally, parking demand is a fluid force, subject to variations according to the availability of alternative transportation, proximity of complimentary land uses, differences in user presence by time of day and time of year, building occupancy rates and a host of other factors. Conversely, the available parking supply tends to be a fixed quantity, limited by the amount of space that can be allocated on a given site for parking. Assuming the effects of Shared Parking, the projected weekday peak-hour parking demand for the Development is 331 ± spaces, on the busiest weekday annually. The peak-hour demand, which is projected to occur in May at 5:00 PM, is calculated based upon the driving and non-captive ratios as well as the presence factors (peak-hour adjustments) shown in the following table. As depicted, the projected peak-hour weekday demand represents a 17% or 67 space reduction from the unadjusted weekday parking demand projected for the site. Table 4: Peak-Hour Demand – Weekday (projected) Source: Walker Parking Consultants Weekday Unadjusted Adjustment Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio May May Land Use Demand May 5:00 PM Daytime Daytime 5:00 PM 6:00 PM Specialty Grocery 99 100%97%97% 100%93 72 Employee 17 100%90% 100% 82%13 11 Residential Guests 19 100%40% 100% 100%8 11 Residential Unreserved 263 100%85% 100% 97%217 230 Subtotal Customer/Guest 118 101 83 Subtotal Employee/Resident 280 230 241 Total Parking Spaces Required 398 331 324 % reduction 17% Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 7 In addition to the weekday peak-hour parking demand, the projected weekday demand by time of day (twelve-hour period from 9:00 AM until 9:00 PM), is shown graphically below in Figure 2. Figure 2: Parking Demand by Time of Day – Weekdays (projected) Source: Walker Parking Consultants Assuming the effects of Shared Parking, the projected weekend day peak-hour parking demand for the Development is 312 ± spaces; on the busiest weekend day annually. The peak-hour demand, which is also projected to occur in May at 5:00 PM, is calculated using the driving and non-captive ratios and presence factors (peak-hour adjustments) shown in Table 5 on the following table. As shown, the projected peak-hour weekend day demand represents a 22% or 88 space reduction from the unadjusted weekend day parking demand projection. Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 8 Table 5: Peak-Hour Demand – Weekend Day (projected) Source: Walker Parking Consultants VARIANCE TO LOCAL ZONING CODE When the projected peak-hour parking demand (weekday in May at 5:00 PM) is compared to Walker’s estimated zoning code requirement, a negative variance of 28 ± spaces exists, as shown in the inset table. PARKING ADEQUACY The term “Parking Adequacy” is defined as the ability of the parking supply to accommodate the Design Day peak-hour parking demand. A positive or negative remainder when compared to the proposed parking supply indicates a parking surplus or deficit within the system, structure or lot. Based on our analysis, when the proposed parking supply (339 spaces) is compared to the peak-hour parking demand projection (331 ± spaces), a positive surplus of 8 ± spaces will exist. Therefore, the parking supply proposed for the Development should adequately accommodate the peak-hour parking demand projection, as shown in the inset table. User Group Existing Customer/Guest, All Uses 101 Employee, All Uses 230 Parking Demand (projected)331 Supply 339 Surplus/(Deficit)8 Parking Adequacy (projected) Weekend Unadjusted Adjustment Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio May May Land Use Demand May 5:00 PM Daytime Daytime 5:00 PM 7:00 PM Specialty Grocery 104 100% 80%97% 100%81 34 Grocery Employees 14 100% 55% 100% 82%6 5 Residential Guests 19 100% 40% 100% 100%8 19 Residential 263 100% 85% 100% 97%217 244 Subtotal Customer/Guest 123 89 53 Subtotal Employee/Resident 277 223 249 Total Parking Spaces Required 400 312 302 % reduction 22% Sub-Total Zoning Code Requirement 359 (less) Transit Rqeduction of 10%(11) Total - Zoning Code Requirement 348 Shared Parking Peak-Hour 331 Surplus/(Deficit) Code vs. Shared Parking (28) Variance to Zoning Code Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 9 CONCLUSION Based upon Walker’s analysis of the land use data provided by the City, and the Shared Parking model prepared for the 4900 Excelsior Boulevard mixed-use Development, the following summarizes the results of our analysis. o The projected weekday peak-hour parking demand is 331 ± spaces, on the busiest weekday annually. This calculation is based upon the drive ratios, non-captive ratios and peak-hour adjustments discussed throughout our report. o When the projected peak-hour parking demand (331 ± spaces) is compared to Walker’s estimate of the zoning code requirement (348 ±), a variance of 28 ± fewer spaces is projected. o When the proposed parking supply (339 spaces) is compared to the peak-hour parking demand projection (331 ± spaces), a surplus of 8 ± spaces will exist. o The parking supply proposed for the Development should adequately accommodate the peak-hour parking demand projection. In closing, we hope the enclosed analysis satisfies the scope of work anticipated for the 4900 Excelsior Boulevard engagement. Please call me at your convenience with any questions or comments regarding the material provided for review. Respectfully submitted, Phill Schragal Director of Operations Consulting cc: Carl Schneeman – Walker Parking Consultants C:\Users\schragal\Desktop\St Louis Park\Report\(1.0) Draft 4900 Excelsior_Shared Parking Analysis_040315.docx Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 10 SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Meet with the City’s representative via teleconference to clarify study objectives, define project parameters and review the proposed deliverable product and schedule. B. Obtain from the City’s representative detailed information regarding the land use programming (i.e. square footage, type, etc.) All land use data should be provided in square feet for retail entities, rooms for hotel Development and units (i.e. one- bedroom, two-bedrooms and three-bedroom units, etc.) for residential components. C. Discuss with the City’s representative anticipated peak patronage, visitation or occupancy periods. D. Prepare a Shared Parking Analysis employing the mixed use parking standards established in Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking to project the approximate parking demand for the site. E. In preparing the analysis, we will apply both month and time of day adjustments for each land use to individual parking ratios to determine the approximate shared parking demand for the Development site. F. Summarize Walker’s findings in a draft letter report and submit to the City representative for review and comment. G. Obtain review comments from the City’s representative regarding the draft report. H. Incorporate draft report comments into a final report and submit to the City’s representative. Mr. Sean Walther April 3, 2015 Page 11 STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part. 2. Walker’s report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining to the future performance of the local economy and other factors typically related to individual user characteristics that are either outside Walker’s control or that of the client. To the best of Walker’s ability we analyzed available information that was incorporated in projecting future performance of the proposed subject site. 3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is within the boundaries of the property described, and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted. 4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Walker Parking Consultants are assumed to be true and correct. We assume no liability resulting from misinformation. 5. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission, and the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. 6. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to the date of our field inspections. 7. We do not warrant that the projections will be attained, but they have been prepared on the basis of information obtained during the course of this study and are intended to reflect the expectations of a typical parking patron. 8. The numeric figures presented in this report were generated using computer models that make calculations based on numbers carried out to three decimal places. In the interest of simplicity, most numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand; therefore, these figures may be subject to small rounding errors. 9. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, and all opinions, recommendations, and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment are rendered by the staff of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as individuals. 10. The conclusions and recommendations presented were reached based on Walker’s analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information furnished by others, upon which portions of this study may be predicated, is believed to be reliable; however, it has not been verified in all cases. VICINITY MAP REVISIONSPAGE DRAWING NAME: JOB NO. FILE NO. FIELD BOOK KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY FOR:PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4760 & 4900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD ST. LOUIS PAR, MINNESOTA 55416 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY SHEET 1 OF 1 DRAWN BY: BY:CHECKED FIELDWORKCHIEF: N WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 PHONE: (612) 466-3300 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100 FAX: (612) 466-3383SITEN LEGEND 4900 EXCELSIOR FOR PERMIT Know what's R NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONST. LOUIS PARK SITE DATA SUMMARY ZONING REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING SITE AREA 2.00 ACRES ROW DEDICATION 0.41 ACRES PROPOSED SITE AREA 1.59 ACRES PRE-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA 0.69 ACRES PRE-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.90 ACRES POST-DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA 0.05 ACRES POST-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.54 ACRES PRELIMINARYPLATPP2 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.8 3.4 4.4 3.5 3.6 4.5 3.4 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.4 4.1 3.4 2.5 3.2 4.0 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.4 3.2 2.0 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.7 1.3 2.7 6.3 9.6 5.9 6.6 8.1 5.7 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6 5.9 9.6 5.7 3.3 4.6 8.5 6.8 3.0 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.9 6.6 7.7 3.3 1.3 0.7 0.4 1.0 1.7 2.6 4.1 5.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.2 2.6 3.2 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 4.7 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.0 2.6 3.1 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 1.0 2.6 3.3 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 5.1 2.4 2.7 1.0 0.2 0.4 1.0 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.5 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 4.5 2.6 2.7 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.7 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.0 2.8 2.4 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.6 2.5 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 3.1 2.7 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.1 2.7 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 10.4 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 9.6 9.9 3.1 2.7 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 5.6 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.4 7.0 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 7.6 12.5 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 2.6 2.6 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.4 2.5 1.9 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 3.1 3.7 1.6 1.9 1.5 0.2 0.3 1.2 4.4 5.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 3.7 4.8 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.8 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.7 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 RAIN SENSORS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN. COORDINATE IRRIGATION SLEEVING LOCATIONS WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR. SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION. SOD TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIALS GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A PERFORMANCE IRRIGATION PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. IRRIGATION LIMITS TO EXTEND TO STREET BACK OF CURB. WEE TREE WALL SHALL BE CONNECTED TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. COORDINATE WALL IRRIGATION WITH WEETREE WALL DESIGNER. COORDINATE LOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY AND CONTROLLER WITH MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS. 4900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD SHADOW STUDY 04/09/2015November 22nd / January 20th - 9amNovember 22nd / January 20th - 10 amNovember 22nd / January 20th - 11 amNovember 22nd / January 20th - 1 pmNovember 22nd / January 20th - 2 pmNovember 22nd / January 20th - 12 pmNovember 22nd / January 20th - 3 pm 4900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD SHADOW STUDY 04/09/2015May/ August 21stSeptember/ March 21stNovember /January 219AM11AM 1 PM3 PM