Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020/02/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 5, 2020 1.Call to order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes – November 20, 2019, December 4, 2019, December 18, 2019, and January 8, 2020 3.Hearings 3a.Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 20-01-ZA 3b. Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Applicant: Patrick Crowe, Crowe Companies LLC Case No.: 19-36-CP, 19-37-PUD, 19-38-S 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 the administration department at 952.924.2525 (TDD 952.924.2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 1 2 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 20, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther 3. Public Hearings A. Rezoning C-2 General Commercial properties to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case Nos: 19-26-ZA Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report. The proposed rezoning is the final step taken with the intent of p reserving and encouraging small businesses in neighborhood settings. Earlier this year the council rezoned several properties to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. That rezoning was followed-up with a text amendment to the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district to limit the size of retail and service establishments. The proposed rezoning of properties to the C-1 district is now proposed with the C-1 text amendment in place. Mr. Morrison showed slides of Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Area, the Texa-Tonka area, Knollwood Mall Area, several areas along Excelsior Blvd. and Hwy. 100 and Minnetonka Blvd., all of which are proposed to change to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. Jim McGovern, representing the owner of 5825 Excelsior Blvd, commercial advisor, stated they do not oppose the rezoning plan, but oppose rezoning 5825 Excelsior Blvd. He stated this does not fit the intent or the purpose of the rezoning related to big box stores. He added the purpose of the rezoning is not appropriate for this building, stating there will not be small shops within the building. Mr. McGovern added even with grandfathering the property in - it is 3 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 2 difficult to find tenants that will use 75,000 square feet when their leases run out, and several are about to run out soon. He asked that this property be excluded from the rezoning plan. Tom Goodrum, Loucks Consulting, stated he is representing 5825 Excelsior Blvd as well. He stated this is difficult to deal with in making this C-1, adding not a lot of uses transfer over from C2 to C1, and especially as it relates to tenants or proposed tenants that might use this space. He stated this building does not fit the small retail building purpose, adding it has residential behind it. He asked if the commission could take more time to review this property. He added land uses can work together, but asked for further review by the commission on this issue. Brian Alton, 951 Grand Ave, St. Paul, MN 55105, stated he is representing the 5825 Excelsior Blvd property also. He stated this would have a devastating effect on the property itself. He stated it is a unique parcel and on a busy street, near a railroad, built well with large tenants and large spaces. He stated C-1 is not appropriate use for this property. He added this is a restriction of good uses of properties such as this one. He stated this is also inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. Andrew Hoffer, 3966 Alabama Ave, stated they like the way the commission is planning the neighborhood, adding this is a very good way to maintain the integrity of their neighborhood. He stated the residential neighborhood supports the commission’s decision. Larry Lessley, 2965 Brunswick Ave, stated this is a great move for the neighborhood. He stated they are all for progress, and the development must fit the neighborhood. He added they are supportive of the plan. Chris Kasic, 3916 Colorado Ave, stated he is also in favor of the rezoning, and agrees with the previous two speakers. He stated this fits well with the neighborhood as well, adding this will help to not have large buildings built in this neighborhood area. Susan Bloomgren, 3961 Brunswick Ave, stated she is also in support of the rezoning and appreciates keeping the small neighborhood feel alive while also progressing and developing the area. Barb Castagna, 6002 Excelsior Blvd, she supports this and also owns Educational Outfitters, noting her biggest concern is safety for children as they shop for their school uniforms. She stated 50% of her business is done between July and Labor 4 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 3 Day, and she is concerned about parking near the business, and that it be safe for all who shop at this store. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison referred to the Party City building and asked staff for clarification on the owner’s ability to lease the building. Mr. Morrison stated the zoning refers to retail, and not to restaurants, showrooms, banks, offices, indoor entertainment. He noted there are several uses that could go into the building. Mr. Morrison added staff can work with the owners on the issues of concern. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about resale of the building, and if the space leased can be continued. Mr. Morrison stated the building and businesses can be sold and operated in the same manner as they currently are. Non-conformities can continue as is, and they can be replaced by a similar type use and similar size as what is in there currently. Commissioner Robertson stated this is the first time the commission is hearing about the 5825 Excelsior Ave. building issue. He stated he does not see a negative impact on the building to rezone it, but added he is not the owner of the building. He stated this could have been discussed further at study sessions. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if later this building is sold to a different developer who may want high density development, how it would be impacted, also in light of the Brookside neighborhood, and what could be redeveloped there in a C-1 zone. Commissioner Robertson stated this feels a bit awkwar d if it’s the only building zoned C-2 within the C-1 district. He hopes the owner of the property has had an opportunity to discuss this. Chair Eckholm asked if this property could be removed from the zoning for further discussion. Mr. Walther stated action on this parcel could be tabled this evening and come back at a later date for discussion and decision, and also re-opening the public hearing specific to this parcel, or move it along with notes, or hold up the vote as a whole. 5 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 4 Mr. Walther added this was going to move to city council at the December 2 meeting for a first reading. Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated they would like to move this forward to vote and then have council review in December. Commissioner Johnston-Madison added if the council were to pull this building out for further consideration, she recommends the neighborhood impacted would be involved in future discussions and meetings. Commissioner Beneke asked how far the non-conforming goes. Can they tear down the building and re-build it, can they rearrange interior walls? What is allowed. Mr. Morrison stated the building could be rebuilt if destroyed or torn down . It would have to be re-built to the same dimensions and cannot be made more non-conforming. Commissioner Erwin noted the 5825 building concerns about the ability to lease it in the future, were addressed in that it can still utilized it in the same way without any further hindering of the building. Commissioner Dumalag stated the commission needs to look forward related to development within the city, she hopes the owners work with the city staff on future uses of the building, especially as leases roll over. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Dumalag seconded, recommending approval of the rezoning C-2 General Commercial properties to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Mr. Walther stated this will come before the council at the December 2 meeting for first reading and review. B. Parking ordinance amendment – Historic Walker Lake Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case Nos: 19-32-ZA 6 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 5 Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report. This ordinance includes regulations that apply to is an amendment to the parking ordinance in the Historic Walker Lake area only and regulations that would apply to the whole city. Mr. Morrison noted the amendments create regulations for the in the Historic Walker Lake area, that requireing a reduced number of parking spaces for new structures, or expansion of existing structures. It also waives the minimum parking requirements for existing buildings, and on-site parking. He stated the number of parking spaces that exist on the property cannot be reduced . Mr. Morrison noted that the city-wide amendments prohibit theincluding aisles and driveways from beingnot be used for any purpose that would prevent vehicle access to parking spaces or inhibit circulation or emergency service response. Additionally, parking spaces shall be open directly to an aisle or driveway, and parking spaces are to be clearly marked using minimum four-inch wide painted lines as shows on an approved parking plan. Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommends approval of the noted amendments as proposed. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kraft asked about onoff- street parking and how it is delineated which business the parking goes to. Mr. Morrison stated that the on-street parking spaces are public, and cannot be allocated to a specific business. throughout the city, businesses are allowed to include parking spaces that are adjacent, but in the Historic Walker Lake area, there are no regulations like this, so parking is open to all. Chair Eckholm stated this is about as good as can be expected in this area, and he is in support of this. Commissioner Johnston-Madison also supports this, adding businesses will need to figure out in the Walker Lake area how to include parking in their business plan, and the commission will not be able to second guess this going forward. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded, recommending approval of the Parking ordinance amendment – to 7 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 6 create parking standards and miscellaneous parking standards within the Historic Walker Lake area and the city. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 4. Other Business 5. Communications Mr. Walther stated there is a study session immediately following the meeting. He added the next meeting of the commission will be on December 4. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther GUEST PRESENT: Rita Trapp, consultant planner with Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGi) The study session commenced at 7:00 p.m. 1. Zoning amendment – Accessory dwelling units Ms. Trapp presented background information related to accessory dwelling units . She noted they would discuss policy questions with the commission. 8 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 7 Ms. Trapp stated there are 3 types of accessory dwelling units including: attached, attached interior, and detached structure which is separate from the original structure. Ms. Trapp stated the building code involves single-family, two-family unit, and three- unit complex. She noted if accessory dwelling units become two and three family, there are requirements to create fire walls, and additional safety requirements. Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted there are many rental units within the city currently that rent out rooms with kitchen privileges. Ms. Trapp noted take in borders into one’s home is allowed within the city, as long as it is not creating two independent units, it’s considered a single-family home. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated the council had concerns about building two duplexes on one lot, and when considering R1 and R2, this has not been discussed . Mr. Walther stated the comp plan notes the R1 and R2 are in sin gle family districts, but at this point the conversation will focus on ADU’s. He added the council has not given specific direction at this time. He added there is concern at this time about lot size and non-conforming lots. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked for the additional charts for reference for future meetings. Mr. Walther added staff will provide links for the commission regarding this topic and past meeting dates. Mr. Walther added staff is also concerned about setting people up for certain expectations related to ADU’s, so staff wants the information to be clear related to the ordinance. Ms. Trapp noted the rental license requirements also. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about a complete mother in law apartment . Ms. Trapp stated as it is today, a kitchen is not allowed, just a room. Mr. Walther added there are some with kitchenette’s which have been allowed. The commissioners further discussed the ADU’s related to mother in law apartments and allowing full kitchens vs. kitchenettes. Ms. Trapp stated the owner occupancy requirement for ADU’s can be problematic for resale, and buyers will be narrowed for properties with ADU’s. 9 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission November 20, 2019 Page 8 The commissioners discussed this issue as it relates to resale and homeownership vs. rental properties and possible limitations related to ADU’s. Mr. Walther stated if an ADU is created, there will be costs rel ated to water and sewer. He stated the stack charge is based on a single-family unit, and with and ADU, this will help to increase water and sewer charges. Ms. Trapp pointed out some examples of policies. She noted currently the code limits accessory structures (note ADU’s) only to the back yard, or in the side yard if there is a garage adjacent to a street. She asked the commissioners if this still sounds appropriate. Mr. Walther stated exceptions have been made for side yard garages, and asked if the commission wants to allow this also for ADU’s. Commissioner Robertson stated this would be acceptable to him. He stated the setback could be set at 5 feet. The commissioners agreed to this as a starting point. The commissioners discussed height limits of ADU’s, and scale, along with increasing the setback, as it relates to the proposed code. Ms. Trapp noted staff recommends the existing limit on parking would be 3 vehicles, even if an AUD was added, so there would not be an increase in vehicles allowed to park at the structure. The commissioners agreed to this recommendation. Ms. Trapp stated staff recommends 300-800 square feet for ADU’s, or 40% of the size of the primary home, and allowing 2 occupants within the ADU. The commissioners agreed with this recommendation. Ms. Trapp stated staff recommends prohibiting short-term rentals city-wide, with exceptions such as hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts. The commissioners agreed with this recommendation. Mr. Trapp noted next steps include the first draft of the ordinance will be brought back for more discussion to the commission on December 4 or 18. He also noted the Friends of the Arts would like to meet with the commissioners for feedback, and also noted the commissioners should discuss the 2020 work plan. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 10 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Dec. 4, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:00 p.m. 1. Arts and culture strategic framework focus group Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, provided background on the Friends of the Arts strategic planning, and noted several meetings she had attended. She added a community group of about 20 comprises the steering committee that is now conducting focus groups around the community. This evening, she stated, she will ask the commission several questions related to arts and culture within the city. When you think about creativity and culture and arts in St. Louis Park, what type of activities, opportunities or amenities come to mind? The commissioners noted the following items: • Concerts at Wolfe Park • Streetscape art • Community education courses • Playgrounds at Wolfe Park are welcoming • Projects like artwork by Cub Foods and at Excelsior & Grand, the beehive-shaped fireplace/grillrelocation to Lilac Park What amenity are you most excited about? The commissioners noted the following items: • The murals on the buildings at Parkway Pizza and at the Nest • Amphitheatre and 36th Streetscape • Artists who display at the ROC at the art fair in summer • Lobby of city hall, could add more displays of local art • Twin Cities Film festival is unique and spectacular 11 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Dec. 4, 2019 Page 2 Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated it’s important to note many buildings and projects are all starting to look the same within the city. She added she appreciates developers using art in their creations. Commissioner Johnston-Madison added the Moline Apartment in downtown Hopkins honors the Moline Company, which is interesting, adding possibly the St. Louis Park historical society could look into this type of feature could be incorporated into art and rotating features in various sites throughout the city, and in the historic Walker Lake district as well. Do cultural and artistic amenities and opportunities add to the unique identity of St. Louis Park, in what ways, and do they contribute to vitality of the commun ity? • Film Festival – sense of pride, positive and vital to community – but doesn’t play into the city’s identity – would like to see this more promoted • Wolfe Park • Amphitheater • Westwood Hills Nature Center • Dakota Bridge • Minnehaha Creek bridge at Louisiana • Sculpture at Excelsior and Grand • Tower Light • Full Circle at West End • Sculpture at Ellipse on Excelsior • Sculpture at Fresh Thyme In what ways does the city thrive as a creative enterprise? • Put in issues of Park Perspective 3 times per year, whatever empha sizes community • School district – opportunity there with art classes and youth Barriers: • Outdated language in home occupations ordinance, and not knowing enough about creative enterprise in the city, need a place to gather and collaborate in the city related to art • Lennox Center – art classes there and community education classes, better utilizing spaces within the city – having places to display vs. create art. • Need for historical society/arts center in an old school building 12 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Dec. 4, 2019 Page 3 • Need studio space or places for this to develop – i.e. at the PLACE development, live/work space – but not doable by PLACE on the south side – needs more long- term planning • Would be nice to have maker spaces and places for artists to congregate and look to incorporate this into buildings that are available and do an inventory of buildings - i.e.: Lennox or the Roc – if have this, then can promote arts better. • Find out of there is a center or place where art is congregated, where there are various studios, a coffee shop, a brewery, and other areas where projects are started – collaborative space. This might take place at Historic Walker Lake district. • Turn former Nash Frame building into artist space on Wooddale Ave. • Don’t think art when think of St. Louis Park, but the city h as great parks, great bike trail systems and amenities – so when think of art, might be better to think of outdoor spaces as art opportunity areas that are not necessarily manufactured locations to specifically host art. • Arts and spaces should evolve organically vs. fabrication, and not tear down old buildings to create new. 2. Annual report and 2020 work plan Sean Walther, Senior Planner noted some items that were previously in the 2019 work plan and now shifted into the 2020 work plan because they have not yet been completed. Chair Eckholm asked about the billboard ordinance item. Mr. Walther noted the ordinance currently prohibits billboards and existing billboards are not allowed to be relocated. A developer asked the city council to revisit the regulations to accommodate a development proposal. This was reviewed by the city council and city council agreed to consider potential options but did not commit to making any changes. Staff has researched some potential options and will eventually share potential changes with the city council at a future study session. Planning commission may be asked to make recommendations if it proceeds further. The commissioners reviewed the remaining items on the plan. 13 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Dec. 4, 2019 Page 4 Mr. Walther stated the planning commission’s work has some limited overlap with water conservation programming. Commissioner Robertson stated this can be reviewed but there are many resources available, so it’s not a high priority currently. The commissioners agreed to leave all the “parking lot” items that were not high enough priority to include in 2020 but may be items to explore in future years. Chair Eckholm stated there should be something abo ut affordable commercial properties on the work plan. Commissioner Kraft asked what the transitional industrial zoning is. Mr. Walther stated staff this refers to expanding the uses allowed in the some of the city’s industrial lands, and perhaps creating a third industrial district that could be deployed in specific locations in order to limit the geographic scope of where these expanded uses would be allowed. The commissioners agreed the affordable commercial item could be included in Q1 or Q2. Chair Eckholm stated this could be reviewed as part of the city’s TIF program. Mr. Walther stated the council will want to review the work plan for 2020 again with the commissioners next year, and a joint meeting will be set up to do so. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 14 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 18, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Public Hearings A. Parkway Residences: comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development. Applicant: Sela Investments Location: West 31st Street between Glenhurst Ave and Inglewood Ave Case Nos: 19-27-CP; 19-28-S; 19-29-PUD Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report for a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development for the Parkway Residences development. She mentioned that the applicant is also requesting an alley vacation which will be presented to the council in January. This will be the 2nd phase of the Parkway 25 project. The Parkway Residences development is a collection of 15 properties currently consisting of single-family homes and an assortment of smaller apartment buildings along both sides of 31st Street West between Inglewood Avenue South and Glenhurst Avenue South. The development properties are not all contiguous thus the project will be built amongst other existing buildings. The development will remove twelve of the existing buildings and will reinvest in the rehabilitation of three apartment buildings. The development consists of four new multi-family buildings creating 211 new units plus 24 units from the rehabilitated apartment buildings for a total of 235 residential units. Ms. Monson explained there will be six affordable units included at Site 2 at 60% AMI and the three rehabbed buildings will include 24 units all affordable at 50% AMI. 15 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission December 18, 2019 Page 2 Ms. Monson reviewed the site plans, site access, vehicular parking, bicycle parking, and electric vehicle parking requirements for each of the four development sites. Ms. Monson stated 211 trees are required and 108 will be provided by the developer, therefore the developer will pay $1,154 into the tree fund . She noted alternative landscaping will be used to meet the intent of the ordinance, including public art or site amenities. Ms. Monson stated that staff recommends a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the conditions recommended by staff in the staff report. Commissioner Robertson asked if there is any plan to reguide the area as high density. Ms. Monson stated this was reviewed and staff decided this would remain medium density at this time. Commissioner Beneke asked if tenants will be able to find other living arrangements. Ms. Monson stated the developer is paying relocation costs and is trying to find similar units in a similar location with the same or better rental rates for existing tenants that are being relocated. Chair Eckholm noted the properties directly south of France and asked if there was any discussion with Met Council for a trail connection here in order to connect the two planned SWLRT stations. Ms. Monson stated the path connection is on the south side of the corridor, so a bridge would need to be constructed, and a bridge is already being built at Beltline. However, she added, discussions are taking place for a sidewalk and multi-use trail which could be on the south side of CSAH 25 to connect the development to the Beltline and West Lake stations. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison thanked the developer and staff for this thorough plan and complimented the developer in regard to what they will do for folks in naturally occurring affordable housing properties, adding this should be an expectation of all developers on future projects. Chair Eckholm agreed and the developer is doing right by them and this should be an expectation of all developers. 16 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission December 18, 2019 Page 3 Commissioner Robertson stated this is a large and complex project, which has been discussed thoroughly by the commission. It has been worked on with staff for a long time and all issues have been vetted early in the process. He agreed with his fellow commissioners and stated it will be an asset for St. Louis Park. Commission Erwin asked if those residents being displaced will be given first rights to units if they meet the requirements. The owner stated yes, that is correct. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Parkway Residences: comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development, subject to conditions recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnston-Madison. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. B. Holy Family Academy conditional use permit and preliminary and final plat Applicant: The Church of Holy Family Academy of St. Louis Park Location: 5925 West Lake Street Case Nos: 19-34-CUP; 19-35-S Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a CUP and preliminary and final plat. Ms. Kramer explained the planned building expansion, new playground area, and additional drop-off and pick-up area with additional green space. She noted this plan meets all parking and landscape requirements within the zoning code . Ms. Kramer noted the new floor plans and building elevations, explaining how they relate to the existing school building. The CUP application is an amendment for the application approved in 2012 and meets all zoning requirements for an educational facility with more than 20 students in the R-2 zoning district. The preliminary and final plat will combine five parcels into one, and includes right of way dedication and park dedication fees. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the project falls under the code requirement for electric charging stations. 17 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission December 18, 2019 Page 4 Ms. Kramer stated no as the ordinance requires EV infrastructure when there are 15 parking spaces or more. With only 12 off-street spaces, the applicant is not required to have EV stations. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked who will use these parking spaces. Ms. Kramer stated these spaces will be for after-hours parking. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she is disappointed there are no requirements for EV here, especially in light of the 2040 carbon requirements. Commissioner Robertson asked if there are any water run-off concerns in the area. Ms. Kramer stated this did come up at the neighborhood meeting, but the plan meets all requirements of the city for water run-off. She added the applicant is working with the MCWSD to comply with that organization’s permit requirements. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson stated this is not that much of a change since the 2012 proposal and he has no issues with it, adding it is an impro vement. Commissioner Dumalag made a motion recommending approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary and final plat. Commissioner Johnston- Madison seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 3. Other Business-none 4. Communications Mr. Walther stated the next meeting will be on January 8, 2020 and will be a study session regarding ADU’s. He added Feb 24, 2020 will be the annual boards and commissions meeting with city council from 6-8 p.m. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if a new chair will be elected for 2020. Mr. Walther stated on January 15, 2020 a new chair will be elected and this will be added on the agenda. 18 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission December 18, 2019 Page 5 Commissioner Kraft nominated herself for 2020 chair. Chair Ekholm nominated Commissioner Dumalag for Vice Chair. These nominations will be included in the January 15, 2020 agenda. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:41 p.m. STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:45 p.m. 1. Texa-Tonka small area plan update Ms. Monson provided background on the final draft of the Texa-Tonka small area plan. She noted most of the buildings were constructed in the 1950’s with lots of parking spaces. She stated a market analysis was done and most of the redevelopment will be rental residential and commercial, mixed use. Ms. Monson stated this area is close to walking and biking trails, but sidewalks are in poor condition. Commissioner Robertson asked if bike lanes will be added to Texas Avenue. Ms. Monson stated yes. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if some of the apartments in the area are NOAH. Ms. Monson stated some are and some are being upgraded as well. Commissioner Robertson asked if there will be some affordable commercial spaces. Ms. Monson stated yes and explained the recently adopted mixed-use zoning district includes provisions for affordable commercial spaces. Ms. Monson also added that staff has been in discussions about pop-up commercial space. Commissioner Dumalag asked how the city can keep commercial affordable. Ms. Monson stated a certain amount of space can be provided for commercial affordable, by the city, and also a certain amount of micro-space. 19 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission December 18, 2019 Page 6 Ms. Monson stated the plan process included several opportunities for public participation with two community meetings, two surveys and two pot-up events. She stated most residents participated twice in the outreach programs provided by the city. Questions were asked about what brings folks to the commercial nodes, opinions about the height of buildings, and other items. Many folks stated they wanted many different types of uses, 1-4 stories in height, with walkable areas, and smaller buildings and uses, with safe and pleasantly landscaped connections. Ms. Monson added this area is one of St. Louis Park’s most diverse areas and making folks feel welcome will be a large part of the plan. She added it may be a hybrid of a suburban and urban mall, with parking in front of buildings, as has been the practice in this area. She added residents were happy with this plan when asked. Commissioner Robertson stated the south side of Minnetonka might be better than the north side for larger buildings. Ms. Monson said residents felt 1-4 story buildings would be best on the north side of Minnetonka because of the larger parcel sizes. Commissioner Erwin asked if there are certain types of businesses that people would like to see in the area. Ms. Monson stated small, convenient shops, and a neighborhood coffee shop are all desired by area residents. Commissioner Robertson asked if EVS ordinance should be revisited in light of the development at Texa-Tonka. Chair Eckholm stated this might be a good time to install conduit in the area, during the design phase vs. doing a retro fit later. Commissioner Robertson asked about possibly doing a roundabout at Texas and Minnetonka, along with walking and biking trails. He noted this will be an opportunity to add landscaping and soften this area up. Ms. Monson stated Minnetonka is a county road and the city is working with Hennepin County on the design of the intersection. It is not on the county’s capital improvement plan for several years. Commissioner Johnson-Madison thanked staff for the document and great input from the community. 20 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission December 18, 2019 Page 7 Mr. Walther stated there will be some time before the council sees this in study session and can accept the plan, however there may be a development application coming forward in the near future. Commissioner Robertson asked about the design of the buildings that residents requested, adding he does not prefer design by committee. Mr. Walther stated the district and residents requested these design elements, but will also be rev iewed further, keeping the areas uniqueness in mind. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated there will need to be discussions over time again with residents, developers, the commission, council and staff related to design elements of the area. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. 21 22 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 8, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft. MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Robertson STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:00 p.m. 1. Zoning amendment – accessory dwelling units (ADU) Rita Trapp, HKGi, presented the update to the commissioners. Ms. Trapp stated staff is recommending that this initial ADU ordinance be simplified to focus on allowing ADUs in single-family homes and defining ADUs as self-contained units that are fire-separated from the principal single-family dwelling. In conjunction with the adoption of the ADU ordinance, the city policy regarding second kitchens will change so that they are allowed. This change will allow homeowners to have family, friends or up to two borders stay in their single-family dwelling without having to create a formal ADU. Ms. Trapp explained that the ordinance does not include specific requirements related to rental licensing or sewer and water connections as those provisions are already addressed in other parts of the city code. Information about this requirement would be included in any handouts prepared about ADUS. Ms. Trapp added that staff followed up with the building and energy department to confirm when there will be a sanitary sewer access charge or water access charge when a new ADU is constructed. In addition, staff confirmed that there is at least five feet needed between building openings for two buildings on the same lot. Ms. Trapp noted that the ordinance as proposed would allow an accessory structure or an ADU in the side yard. 23 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission January 8, 2020 Page 2 Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about the number of people allowed to live in the ADU. Ms. Trapp indicated that the ordinance would allow up to two people over the age of 18 with an unlimited number of children. Mr. Walther added that the building code would need to be followed along with zoning, in order to limit the total number of people in the dwelling. Ms. Trapp stated the parcel must meet parking requirements and will not require additional parking. She noted that an ADU that is attached or internal to the single-family dwelling shall be no more than 40% of the principle structure. She also described how decks are proposed to be handled for a detached ADU. Commissioner Kraft asked about the height and setback restrictions. Ms. Trapp stated there will be limits in height similar to an accessory structure, adding that in all likelihood ADUs could not be built on top of an existing garage, but would likely need to be built as a new structure with a new foundation with frost footings. Ms. Trapp presented a diagram illustrating the yard definitions and a table showing the current and proposed yard requirements for various structures. Commissioner Erwin stated the table illustrating setbacks is helpful. Ms. Trapp explained new ordinance language that prohibits short-term vacation rentals. Short-term rentals are already prohibited in St. Louis Park, and this new language clarifies the current interpretation of the zoning code . Commissioners were comfortable with the information presented. Mr. Walther stated the ordinance draft is ready for city council input and it will be reviewed with them soon at a study session. 2. Communications Mr. Walther stated on January 14th at 7 p.m. the state demographer will be at city hall presenting on the implications of the 2020 census on Minnesota. Also, staff intends to give the commission a short presentation related to the census, and efforts underway to engage and inform residents. He added the U.S. Census Bureau is hiring census takers. Mr. Walther confirmed there are no items scheduled for January 15 so that meeting will be cancelled. Mr. Walther stated the next regular meeting of the commission will be February 5, 2020. 24 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission January 8, 2020 Page 3 Mr. Walther added that on February 24, 2020 the annual boards and commissions meeting will be held. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 25 26 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: February 5, 2020 Agenda item: 3a 3a Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios Case Number: 20-01-ZA Recommended motions: Chair to open the public hearing, take public testimony, and close the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to create standards for allowing dogs at food and beverage establishments. Summary of request: The amendment proposed by staff would create regulations establishing the manner in which dogs may be permitted at food and beverage establishments. Background: If a city wants to allow dogs at a food and beverage establishment, then Minnesota statutes 157-175 requires the city to adopt an ordinance stating the manner in which they are allowed. The intent of the statute is to allow cities to adopt an ordinance that allows dogs in designated outdoor areas, and therefore, the ordinance cannot allow dogs inside the establishment. The state statute requires the ordinance to include, at a minimum, the following: 1. Prohibit dangerous dogs. 2. Allow establishments the option to ban dogs. 3. Establish a permit process to allow dogs at the establishment. 4. Prohibit employees from touching the dogs. 5. Prohibit dogs from coming into contact with dishes, utensils, etc. 6. Require dogs to be on a leash and under control. 7. Prohibit dogs from being on furniture. 8. Require dog waste to be cleaned immediately, and the area sanitized. 9. Allow the use of a service dog by a person with a disability or by a law enforcement officer. 10. Define “designated outdoor area” in a manner that is consistent with the rules adopted by the commissioner of health. Zoning analysis: The proposed ordinance would: 1. Include the requirements of state statute. 2. Allow dogs on patios and porch areas only. Dogs, not acting as service dogs, are not permitted within the food or beverage establishment. 3. To allow dogs on porches, the porch must meet the following criteria: a. The establishment’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system cannot be utilized to service the porch. b. There cannot be any openings between the porch and indoor areas other than a solid door that cannot be propped open. c. The exterior walls enclosing the porch must be at least 50% open to the outside. Temporary screens or windows may be utilized during winter and adverse weather. Health code review: All food and beverage establishments in St. Louis Park must meet the Minnesota Health Code regulations and it is the Hennepin County Healt h Department that 27 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios reviews and regularly inspects them to ensure compliance. Staff discussed the proposed ordinance with the Minnesota Department of Health and the Hennepin County Health Department. The city has some flexibility in defining “designated outdoor area.” It is important that the area where dogs are allowed be separate from the interior dining and food prep aration areas. The ordinance maintains the separation by requiring a solid wall adjacent to the interior dining and food preparation areas and by requiring the establishment’s HVAC system not service the area where dogs are allowed. These requirements will prevent air circulation between the two areas. Next steps: Staff scheduled the ordinance for consideration by the city council on March 2, 2020, pending a recommendation from the planning commission. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to allow dogs on patios. Supporting documents: Draft ordinance State Statute 157-175 Letter from The Block Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 28 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios Ordinance No. ___-20 An ordinance regarding dogs on patios at food and beverage establishments The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding underscored text and deleting the strikethrough text. Section breaks are represented by ***. Article V. Special Provisions *** Section 370 - Designated outdoor dog areas. (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection. Designated outdoor dog area means a specifically identified and defined designated outdoor area where dogs are allowed to accompany individuals. Indoor area means an area defined in Minnesota Statute Section 144.413. MN statutes 144.413 Subd 1a. “Indoor area” means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is bounded by walls, doorways, or windows, whether open or closed, covering more than 50 percent of the combined surface area of the vertical planes constituting the perimeter of the area. A wall includes any retractable divider, garage door, or other physical barrier, whether temporary or permanent. A 0.011 gauge window screen with an 18 by 16 mesh count is not a wall. Other person in charge has the meaning specified in the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules, part 4620.0100, subpart 10, as amended from time to time. Designated Outdoor Area means any area on the premises of a food or beverage establishment that is utilized for food and/or beverage service and consumption, and is commonly referred to as a patio or porch. A patio is open to the elements and sky, but may be partially covered or enclosed. A porch must be atmospherically separated from where food and beverages are prepared and served to consumers inside the establishment. To be considered atmospherically separated, the porch shall include, at a minimum: 1. The establishment’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system cannot be utilized to service the designated outdoor area. 2. No openings on any wall separating a designated outdoor area from an indoor area, except said walls may include solid doors which shall not be propped open in any manner and windows which are not made to be opened. 3. The combined surface of exterior walls of the designated outdoor area shall be at least 50% open. Said openings may be filled with screens or windows. The windows, however, must be made to be removed or opened so that the entire opening is unobstructed. 29 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios Proprietor has the meaning specified by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules, part 4620.0100, subpart 13, as amended from time to time. (b) Authorized uses. Restaurants, food service, taprooms, microdistillery cocktail room establishments, and uses with a cafeteria as an accessory use may apply for approval of a designated outdoor dog area. (c) Permit required. A registration of land use shall be issued prior to operating a designated outdoor dog area. (1) The application shall provide the following information on a form provided b y the city: a. The name, location, and mailing address of the establishment; b. The name, mailing address, and telephone contact information of the applicant; c. A detailed site plan depicting the designated outdoor dog area; and d. A description of the days of the week and hours of operation that patrons' dogs will be permitted in the designated outdoor dog areas. (2) Approval for a designated outdoor dog area issued pursuant to this chapter may not be transferred to a subsequent owner upon the sale of the establishment but shall expire automatically upon the sale of the establishment. The subsequent owner shall be required to reapply for approval pursuant to this chapter if the subsequent owner wishes to continue to accommodate patrons' dogs, in addition to complying with all other applicable licensing requirements of this Code. (3) Request for changes to an approved designated outdoor dog area shall be made by submitting a new application for a designated outdoor dog area. (d) Minimum requirements. Any establishment obtaining approval for a designated outdoor dog area shall comply with the following requirements: (1) Employees must be prohibited from touching, petting, or otherwise handling dogs; should any employee inadvertently touch or otherwise handle a dog, the employee shall promptly wash and clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms; (2) Employees and patrons must not allow dogs to come into contact with serving dishes, utensils, tableware, linens, paper products, or any other items involved in food/beverage service operations; (3) Patrons must keep their dogs on a leash at all times and must keep their dogs under reasonable control; (4) The establishment shall provide an adequate number of water dishes for the sole use of dogs; (5) Dogs must not be allowed on chairs, tables, or other furnishings; and (6) Dog waste must be cleaned immediately, and the area sanitized. (e) Prohibitions. Patrons must abide by the following requirements when bringing dogs into establishments with designated outdoor dog areas: (1) Dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs shall not accompany patrons into the establishment; and (2) All dogs must be restrained by a leash and licensed as required pursuant to section 8- 626 of this Code. 30 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios (f) Posting required. The requirements of section (c) and (d) above must be clearly printed on a sign or signs to be posted within the designated dog area in a manner and place that is conspicuous to employees and patrons. Additionally, a clearly printed sign shall be posted within the entry of the establishment that indicates where dogs are allowed on the premises. (g) Access. Dogs are not permitted in an indoor area, and shall enter and exit the designated outdoor dog area without passing through an indoor area. (h) Service animals. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit: (1) The right of a person with disabilities to access places of public accommodation while accompanied by a service animal as provided in Minnesota Statute Sections 256C.02 and 363A.19; or (2) The lawful use of a service animal by a licensed peace officer. (i) Violation and penalties. (1) Proprietors. It is a violation of this chapter for the proprietor or other person in charge of any premises subject to this chapter to fail to comply with the requirements of all sections except section 36-370(e)(1) prohibiting dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. (2) Patrons. It is a violation of this chapter for a patron of any premises subject to this chapter to fail to comply with the requirements of section 36-370(e)(1) prohibiting dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. (3) Adverse license action. Violation of any provision of this chapter by a licensee shall be adequate grounds for the denial, refusal to renew, revocation or suspension of the establishment's licenses or of the establishment's approval to provide designated outdoor dog areas. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council __________ Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney First Reading March 2, 2020 Second Reading March 16, 2020 Date of Publication March 26, 2020 Date Ordinance takes effect April 10, 2020 31 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios 157.175 DOGS; OUTDOOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS. Subdivision 1. Municipal authorization. A statutory or home rule charter city may adopt an ordinance to permit food and beverage service establishments to allow dogs to accompany persons patronizing designated outdoor areas of food and beverage establishments. Subd. 2. Dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. The ordinance must prohibit dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs, as defined in section 347.50, from accompanying patrons to food and beverage establishments. Subd. 3. Banning dogs. The ordinance may not prohibit a food and beverage establishment from banning dogs. A person accompanied by a dog who remains at an establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has posted a sign banning dogs or otherwise informed the person that dogs are not permitted in the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. Subd. 4. Permit process. (a) The ordinance must require participating establishments to apply for and receive a permit from the city before allowing patrons' dogs on their premises. The city shall require from the applicant such information as the local government deems reasonably necessary, but shall require, at a minimum, the following information: (1) the name, location, and mailing address of the establishment; (2) the name, mailing address, and telephone contact information of the permit applicant; and (3) a description of the designated outdoor areas in which the permit applicant intends to allow dogs; (4) a description of the days of the week and hours of operation that patrons' dogs will be permitted in the designated outdoor areas. (b) A permit issued pursuant to the authority granted in this section must not be transferred to a subsequent owner upon the sale of a food and beverage establishment but must expire automatically upon the sale of the establishment. The subsequent owner shall be required to reapply for a permit pursuant to this section if the subsequent owner wishes to continue to accommodate patrons' dogs. (c) A city may incorporate the permit requirements of this section into a permit or license issued under an existing ordinance if the city ensures that current and future permit and license holders comply with the requirements of this section. A city may exempt current permit and license holders from reapplying for a permit, if the current permit or license holder provides the city with the information required in paragraph (a) and any other information that the city requests. Subd. 5. Minimum requirements. The ordinance must include such regulations and limitations as the local government deems reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, 32 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios and general welfare of the public, but must require, at a minimum, the following requirements, which must be clearly printed on a sign or signs posted on premises in a manner and place that are conspicuous to employees and patrons: (1) employees must be prohibited from touching, petting, or otherwise handling dogs; (2) employees and patrons must not allow dogs to come into contact with serving dishes, utensils, tableware, linens, paper products, or any other items involved in food service operations; (3) patrons must keep their dogs on a leash at all times and must keep thei r dogs under reasonable control; (4) dogs must not be allowed on chairs, tables, or other furnishings; and (5) dog waste must be cleaned immediately and the area sanitized. Subd. 6. Service animals. Nothing in this statute, or an ordinance adopted pursuan t to this statute, shall be construed to limit: (1) the right of a person with disabilities to access places of public accommodation while accompanied by a service animal as provided in sections 256C.02 and 363A.19; or (2) the lawful use of a service animal by a licensed peace officer. Subd. 7. Designated outdoor area. The ordinance must include a definition of "designated outdoor area" that is consistent with applicable rules adopted by the commissioner of health. 33 Regular meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment allowing dogs on patios 34 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: February 5, 2020 Agenda item: 3b 3b Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Location: 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Case Numbers: 19-36-CP, 19-37-PUD, 19-38-S Applicant: Patrick Crowe, Crowe Companies LLC Review Deadline: 60 days: March 7, 2020 120 days: May 6, 2020 Recommended motions: Chair to close the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary and final plat and the preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD) subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Summary of request: Patrick Crowe requests city approvals for a comprehensive plan amendment, planned unit development (PUD), and preliminary and final plat in order to construct a new apartment development called The Quentin at the following addresses: 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road. The comprehensive plan amendment would re-guide one of the parcels from OFC Office to RH High Density Residential. The proposed plat would combine three previously unplatted parcels into one new parcel. The PUD would rezone the property from R-C high-density multiple-family residence to a new PUD district. Site area (acres): 1.05 Current uses: office, single family home, garage and outdoor storage Surrounding land uses: Neighborhood: Cedarhurst North: single family residential East: multi-family residential South: multi-family residential & office West: commercial Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning OFC- office RH - high density residential R-C high-density multiple-family residence Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning RH - high density residential PUD planned unit development 35 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Site location: Background: The project site consists of three unplatted parcels: 1. 4900 Cedar Lake Road contains a small one-story office building and surface parking. 2. 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road contains a single-family home. 3. 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road is an office building. 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road has a variance and special permit recorded on the property (Resolutions 1953 and 1988). As part of the approval process, staff recommend city council rescind these resolutions if and when the council approves the current applications. 4900 Cedar Lake Road 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road 36 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) The applicant proposes a new 79-unit residential building with 5 stories of apartments and two levels of structured parking. The new parcel will have frontage on Old Cedar Lake Road, Quentin Avenue and Cedar Lake Road. The Cedar Place development would start construction in spring 2020 and open for leasing in fall 2021. Present considerations: The applicant requests that the city: A. Amend the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Land Use Map for 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from OFC – office to RH – high density residential. B. Approve a preliminary and final plat to combine the three parcels for development. C. Amend the zoning map and zoning ordinance to rezone the subject properties from R-C high-density multiple-family residence to PUD planned unit development. Comprehensive plan amendment: The applicant requests a change to the future land use designation of 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from OFC – office to RH – high density residential. Below is a map showing the area of interest from the comprehensive clan future land use map and proposed change. A request for amending the city’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflec t the community’s long-range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. 37 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for residential development at a density of 75 units per acre, which is considered High Density (RH) in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment may be evaluated independently of the development proposal against the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject properties. The amendment itself does not permit the proposed development but is one step in the approvals process. General consistency with the comprehensive plan. The city’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the comprehensive plan. Staff identified the following goals that may be applicable to this application . Livable communities goal #1. Provide attractive public streets, spaces and facilities that contribute to creating connections, a strong sense of community and opportunities for community interaction. D. Provide pedestrian and bicycle pathways that connect key departure points and destinations throughout the city and require installation of identified connections during the redevelopment process. Livable communities goal #2: Promote building and site design that creates a connected, human scale, multi-modal, and safe environment for people who live and work here. A. Encourage quality design in new construction such as building orientation, scale, massing and pedestrian access. Residential land use goal #1. Create a mix of residential land uses and housing types to increase housing choices, including affordable housing, and increase the viability of neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development. B. Promote and support the development of medium and high -density residential land uses near commercial centers and nodes. C. Ensure that new and redeveloped medium and high -density residential land uses are located within walking distance of transit and commercial services. Housing goal #3: multi-family. The city is committed to promoting quality multi-family developments, both rental and owner occupied, in appropriate locations, including near transit centers, retail and employment centers and in commercial mixed-use districts. A. Promote high-quality architectural design in the construction of new multi-family developments. Housing goal #4: residential rental housing. The city is committed to creating, preserving and improving the city’s rental housing stock. B. Minimize the involuntary displacement of people of color, indigenous people and vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, the elderly and people with disabilities from their communities as neighborhoods grown and change. Housing goal #6: affordable housing. The city is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households 38 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) B. Ensure affordable housing is disbursed throughout the city and not concentrated in any one area. Climate and energy goal #1. Pursue the 2040 Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals to reduce greenhouse gases that are either emitted within the city’s boundary or emitted indirectly through the purchase of electricity or other energy sources: C. Promote and support updating of the city’s green building policy and expand the number of new and renovated buildings that are constructed to achieve the green building policy standards. Approving the comprehensive plan land use map amendment will allow for additional housing units, including affordable units, in an area that is well served by transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The general area of the development is a mix of uses, including commercial, office, and multi-family and single-family residences. The property is nearby the West End area, which is one of the densest areas in St. Louis Park both in housing, employment, shopping, entertainment and services. The West End area of the city is primarily guided OFC office, which allows for higher densities than the RH designation. The request to change the future land use designation to RH – high density residential is consistent with the other properties in the development, the adjacent property to the east, and nearby properties to the south and northwest. Availability of infrastructure. Water and sewer: City engineering and operations staff have reviewed the proposed development and found the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. Traffic: City engineering and operations staff have reviewed th e proposed development and found the development to have minimal impact to the transportation network and no changes will be necessary to the surrounding street network. Stormwater: The applicant will be required to obtain both city and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits prior to construction. Impacts to surrounding properties and the physical character of the neighborhood . Removal of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the parcels will change the character of the property. This development is similar in scale and density to previously approved developments in the West End area, densities allowed in adjacent properties and is adjacent to existing multi- family residential property. Additionally, the this development will construct a trail connection which will improve bike and pedestrian facilities. Staff finds the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan support reguiding this property to RH high density residential. Preliminary and final plat analysis: The applicant seeks preliminary and final plat approval to combine three previously unplatted lots into one parcel. 39 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Lots: The subdivision will create one 1.05-acre lot for multiple family residential use. Right of way dedication: The plat dedicates 9,660 square feet of road right of way to Cedar Lake Road. Easements: Drainage and utility easements are provided along all property lines as per the requirements of the city’s subdivision ordinance. All easements abutting city right-of-way are ten feet in width, and easements provided along all internal property lines are five feet in width. Access and site circulation: Vehicular access to the site is off Cedar Lake Road on a new drive aisle leading to the structured parking. Package delivery and moving trucks will be instru cted to make a three-point turn in the parking lot hammerhead and will not idle on Cedar Lake Road. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic can access the building from the lobby on the southeast side of the building, the bicycle room on the southwest side of the building, and a resident-only entrance on the north side of the building. Sidewalks: The city’s subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks along all parcel lines abutting public right-of-way when platting a property. New 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be installed along Old Cedar Lake Road, and the existing sidewalk would be preserved along Cedar Lake Road. A new 10-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian trail would be installed along Quentin Avenue. Access to the Cedar Lake Trail is approximately 1/3-mile east of the site. Park and trail dedication: The 2020 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication fee at $1,500 per dwelling unit and the residential trail dedication fee at $225 per dwelling units. All three existing parcels have not been previously platted, so the city may collect park and trail dedication fees for each lot. Staff estimate the development will owe $118,500 in park dedication fees and $17,775 in trail dedication fees. Planning staff will present their fee recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission on March 18, 2020, for their recommendation to city council. Staff find the preliminary and final plat meet city requirements. PUD analysis: The developer requests approval of a preliminary and final Planned Unit Development (PUD). A PUD is a rezoning and zoning text amendment that established the regulations for a specific property. The site is currently zoned R-C high-density multiple-family residence. The site does not currently meet the 2-acre minimum for a PUD request. The city council may waive this requirement. Staff support the use of a PUD zoning for this property as it allows for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual site and advances the city’s climate action goals. 40 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Building and site design analysis. Cedar Place meets the PUD ordinance goals for building and site design. The 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. Staff find the plan meets this requirement. (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. Staff find this criteria will be met. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. This criteria will be met. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The applicant will install solar panels on the roof to offset common area electricity. A green roof will also be installed on the east side of the parking pedestal. Staff find this criteria will be met. 41 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) (5) A PUD shall comply with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. The applicant proposes offering 20% of the units at 60% area median income (AMI). This criteria will be met. Zoning analysis. The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning Compliance Table. Factor Required Proposed Met? Use None with PUD Residential Yes Lot area 2.0 acres minimum 1.05 Pending council approval Sidewalks Required along all street frontages Provided along all street frontages Yes Setbacks None with PUD Front: 8.4’ Side (street): 10’ Side (interior): 10.3’ Rear: 8’ Yes Height None with PUD 72’ Yes Building materials Minimum of 60% Class 1 materials Meets minimum requirements; see below Pending council approval Ground floor area ratio None with PUD 0.61 Yes Vehicular parking 93 112 Yes Bicycle parking 89 112 Yes EV charging infrastructure Level 1: 9 Level 2: 1 Level 1: 10 Level 2: 1 Yes Open area/DORA None with PUD 13.4% Yes Landscaping See landscaping section Yes Tree replacement 103.2” 193.5” Sidewalks Required along all street frontages Provided along all street frontages Yes Refuse handling Full screening required; compliance with city’s Solid Waste ordinance required Plan will comply with all solid waste handling and screening requirements Yes Transit service None required Bus 25 and 45 serve the project site Yes Stormwater management Meet city and state requirements Site will meet requirements Yes Uses. Cedar Place is a multi-family residential development that includes studio, 1-bedroom, 1- bedroom + den, and 2-bedroom units. The breakdown of unit type by site is as follows: 42 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Unit Type Number of Units Number of Bedrooms Studio 14 14 One bedroom 23 23 One bedroom + den 28 28 Two bedroom 14 28 Total 79 93 The building will include the following community spaces: a bicycle hub with wall racks, a repair station, and drinking water facilities; outdoor patio at the building lobby entrance; maker space; yoga/meditation room; outdoor amenity deck with year-round sauna; and indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge. Architectural design. The applicant is requesting >5/8” fiber cement panel (Nichiha) be considered a class I material. This material is currently classified as class II per the zoning ordinance. However, this material has been approved as a class I material for other buildings throughout the city including in the Place development. Staff recommends allowing >5/8” fiber cement panel as a class I material for this development. The applicant is complying to the city’s architectural material standards with a minimum of 60% class I materials on all facades of the building if >5/8” fiber cement panel is approved as a class I material. Other class I materials included in the development include brick, glass and stucco. The upper level of structured parking is designed to be converted to housing or retail if in the future parking demand on the site reduces and fewer parking spaces are required. Height. The building is six stories and 72’ in height. The site slopes from north to south so the building has five stories above ground on the north property line on Old Cedar Lake Road. Lighting. The applicant is working with the neighboring apartment building to provide exterior light from the project site to the neighboring parking lot. An agreement in written form shall be submitted to the city once the agreement is finalized, and is one of the staff recommended conditions of approval. All other lighting meets the requirements of the zoning code. Vehicular parking. City code requires 93 parking spaces based on one parking space per bedroom. The plans provide 107 spaces in two levels of structured parking and 5 guest spaces in a small surface lot to the east of the building. The development complies with the city’s parking ordinance. The development will also adhere to the city’s Readiness Ordinance, which requires 800 mhz radios and security cameras in the parking garages. Electric vehicle parking. City code requires 9 level 1 and 1 level 2 EV charging stations based on the number of vehicular parking spaces. The plan provides 10 level 1 charging stations on the lower parking level and one level 2 charging station in the surface level parking lot. The development complies with the city’s electric vehicle parking ordinance. 43 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Bicycle parking. City code requires 89 bicycle parking spaces and the plan provides 112 bicycle parking spaces in wall-mounted racks, the bicycle room on the ground floor, and exterior bicycle racks. Landscaping. City code requires 79 trees and 474 shrubs based on the number of dwelling units. The plan provides 73 canopy trees and 22 ornamental trees for a total of 84 trees which meets the code requirement. The plan provides 124 shrubs which is a shortfall of 350 shrubs. The developer proposes the following alternative landscaping features to make up the shortfall: • 7,000 square feet of pollinator grass plantings • 8,000 square feet of no-mow grass plantings • 1,971 native perennial flower and grass plantings Designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). There is no minimum DORA requirement for planned unit developments. The plan provides the following spaces for a total of 13.3% site area of DORA: an outdoor patio on the ground floor, an amenity deck on the second floor above the parking pedestal, and an indoor/outdoor rooftop lounge. Signs. A sign plan was not submitted for review. The site shall comply with the same sign regulations as applied to sites zoned R-C high-density multiple-family residence. Utilities. All utility services to the building will be placed underground. The applicant has proposals or contracts with all utility companies with facilities on the property to coordinate relocation or abandonment of existing service lines as necessary. Climate Action Plan. The building will adhere to the city’s Green Building Policy. In addition, the project will include the following sustainability features: • A rooftop solar array to offset common area electricity. • A green roof will be installed on the east side of the parking pedestal. • Local and sustainable building materials will be sourced as available. • Deconstruction and recycling of materials during demolition when possible. • Energy efficient building systems including LED lighting with motion sensors in common areas, smart thermostats, high-efficiency HVAC, low-flow showers, dual flush toilets, energy star appliances, and Low-E glass. Neighborhood meeting and public feedback: A neighborhood meeting was held on January 23, 2020. About 10 residents were in attendance. Some of the residents were concerned about parking, traffic, and the effect of the development on property values. Other residents were fully supportive of the project. At the time of this report staff have received two emails regarding this development. One resident requested the entrance to the building be on Old Cedar Lake Road rather than Cedar Lake Road. The other resident had some questions regarding parking and the status of the existing apartment building to the east of the project site. Please see the emails attached to this report. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Cedar Place Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff recommend approval of the requested comprehensive plan amendment changing the land use designation of the future land use map from OFC office to RH – high density residential. 44 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Staff recommends approval of the Cedar Place Addition preliminary and final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. 3. 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 with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to the city signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a. 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 ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the city. b. A planning development contract shall be executed between the city and developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to , sidewalks and boulevards. ii. 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 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iii. The applicant shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. iv. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute the planning development contract. c. Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $118,500 and trail dedication fee of $17,775 for residential uses. b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. e. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 45 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) 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 and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the Cedar Place preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the following conditions: 1. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. 3. 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 with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. c. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 5. 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 planning development contract shall be executed between the developer and city that addresses, at a minimum: i. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. ii. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to , sidewalks and boulevards. iii. 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 1.25 times of the costs of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iv. The developer shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. i. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute said planning development contract. c. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the city engineer for review and approval. d. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 46 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) e. A letter stating the agreement for the development to provide exterior lighting to the neighboring apartment parking lot shall be provided to the city. 6. 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 and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring 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. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the city engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. 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. g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall be completed: a. Public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 8. A sign permit shall be submitted for city approval if new signage is proposed on the site. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. 9. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Supporting documents: draft comprehensive plan amendment resolution; draft preliminary and final plat resolution; draft PUD ordinance; draft resolution rescinding previous approvals; official exhibits; emails from residents Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 47 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution supporting the approval of an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 for the property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Whereas, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 2019; and Whereas, the use of said Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and Whereas, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expe nditures; and Whereas, said Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government; and Whereas, said Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption of an amendment to said Plan on February 5, 2020; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and Whereas, the contents of Planning Case File 19-36-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case; and Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of St. Louis Park that said Plan, as previously adopted by the City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the future land use designation for the property at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from OFC – Office to RH – High Density Residential, and Changes to the text, tables and figures within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan document as shown in the attachments to reflect updates to city forecasts and development phasing based off of the change in land use; changes within the document are found on the following pages: 5-126 and 5-129. City staff are instructed to submit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 48 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 49 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Cedar Place Addition 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Whereas, Crowe Companies, LLC, owner of land proposed to be platted as Cedar Place Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and Whereas, the proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Now therefore be it resolved the proposed preliminary and final plat of Cedar Place Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 6. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 7. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. 8. 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 with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 9. Prior to the city signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: d. 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 ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the city. e. A planning development contract shall be executed between the city and developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks and boulevards. 50 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) ii. 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 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iii. The applicant shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. iv. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute the planning development contract. f. Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 10. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $118,500 and trail dedication fee of $17,775 for residential uses. b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. e. All necessary permits shall 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 and landscaping. It is further resolved The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on recor d forthwith without further formality. 51 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 52 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS That port of the West 522 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, tying South of Cedar Lake Road and North of County Road No. 16 and Easterly of a line parallel and 40 feet Easterly of the following describ ed line: Commencing at the intersection of the center li'nes of said Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 73 degrees 40 minutes with the center line of said Cedar Lake Road for 400 feet and there terminating. AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 30, distant 522 feet East of the Southwest comer thereof; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 163.9 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence Easterly deflecting to the right at an angle of 87 degrees 14 minutes a distance of 100 feet to an intersection with a line parallel with and distant 622 feet East of the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North and parallel with the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the South li'ne of Cedar Lake Road: thence Westerly along the South line of said road to its points of intersection with a l1'ne drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the West li'ne of said Southeast Quarter of the South west Quarter; thence Southerly to the point of beginm'ng, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principle Meridian; and that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, described as follows: Beg1'nning at a point in the South l1'ne of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 30, distant 522 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof,· thence North parallel with the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 163.9 feet,· thence Easterly deflecting to right at an angle of 87 degrees 14 minutes a distance of 100 feet; thence Easterly 105.3 feet, more or less, to a point i'n a line drawn parallel with and 726 feet East of the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point being distance 194.3 feet North of the South line of said Section 30; thence South parallel with the West l1'ne of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 86.8 feet; thence Southwesterly in a straight line 237 feet, more or less, to a point in a line drawn South from the point of beginning and parallel with the West /1'ne of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, said point bei'ng distant 21.5 feet South of the point of beginning; thence North 21.5 feet to the point beginning. 53 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Ordinance No. ___-20 Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park City Code relating to zoning by creating Section 36-268-PUD 16 as a Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the property located at 4900 Cedar Lake Road, 4905 Old Cedar Lake Road, and 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (Case No. 19-37-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-268-PUD 16. Section 2. Section 2. The city council voted on April 6, 2020, to approve Resolution No. 20- XX amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the future land use designation for the subject property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road from Office to High Density Residential. Said comprehensive plan amendment is associated with this ordinance and requires Metropolitan Council review and authorization to put it into effect. Section 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following de scribed lands from R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residence to PUD 16: Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Place Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Section 26-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 16. (a) Development Plan. The site located on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Place Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C000 Cover Sheet 2. C100 Existing Conditions & Removals Plan 3. C200 Sediment & Erosion Control – Phase I 4. C201 Sediment & Erosion Control – Phase II 5. C300 Site Plan 6. C400 Grading Plan 7. C410 Accessible Route Plan 8. C500 Utility Plan 9. A000 Lower Level Parking Plan 10. A001 Lobby/Upper Level Parking Plan 11. A002-1 Floor Plans 12. A002-2 Floor Plan/Roof Plan 13. A003 Building Elevations 14. A004 Building Elevations 15. A005 Building Images 54 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) 16. A006 Shadow Study 17. A007 Designated Outdoor Recreation Area 18. L000 Tree Preservation Plan 19. L100 Landscape Plan 20. Exterior Lighting Plan The site shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off-street. a. A total of 107 parking spaces will be provided in structured parking. b. A total of 5 spaces will be provided in an off-street surface lot. 2. The property shall be developed with 79 residential units. 3. The maximum height shall not exceed 72 feet and six (6) stories. 4. The site shall contain a minimum of 13% designed outdoor recreation area. (b) Uses. 1. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in PUD 16: a. Multiple-family dwellings. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including but not limited to, the residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly room or general amenity space. 2. Accessory uses. Accessory uses are as follows: a. Home occupations are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: i. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. ii. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right- of-way. iii. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. iv. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. v. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. vi. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. vii. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. viii. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. ix. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. b. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. c. Gardens. d. Parking lots. e. Public transit stops/shelters. f. Outdoor seating, public address (PA) systems are prohibited. 55 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) g. Outdoor uses and outdoor storage are prohibited. h. Accessory utility structures including: i. Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii. Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii. Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. (c) Special Performance Standards 1. All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking, and screening requirements. 2. All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure. 3. Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residence Zoning District and shall comply with the following: a. Pylon signs shall be prohibited. 4. Fiber cement paneling a minimum of 5/8-inch thick shall be considered a class I material. 5. Awnings. a. Awnings shall be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. b. Backlit awnings shall be prohibited. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect May 8, 2020. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading April 6, 2020 Second reading April 20, 2020 Date of publication April 30, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect May 8, 2020 56 Regular meeting meeting of February 5, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Title: Cedar Place development (The Quentin) Resolution No. 20-____ A resolution rescinding Resolutions 1953 and 1988 relating to the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for property located at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road Whereas, on January 7, 2020 Patrick Crowe on behalf of Crowe Companies LLC filed an application seeking a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), which requires zoning map and zoning text amendments to create a new PUD that replaces the existing resolutions regulating the property at 5005 Old Cedar Lake Road; and Whereas, notice of a public hearing on the PUD was mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property; and Whereas, on February 5, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval of the PUD; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed PUD including comments and exhibits; Now therefore be it resolved that Resolutions 1952 and 1988 are hereby rescinded upon the effective date of Ordinance No. _______ relating to rezoning of the subject property. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 6, 2020. Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 57 58 COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C000 - COVR.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:41 PMFINAL PUD PLANSFORPROJECT CONTACTSPROJECT MANAGER/OWNERPATRICK CROWECedar Partners, LLC.4900 Cedar Lake RoadSt. Louis Park, MN 55416(612)-760-4343 MOBILECIVIL ENGINEERBENJAMIN LUCAS, PESOLUTION BLUE, INC.444 Cedar StreetSaint Paul, MN 55101(651)294-0038 OFFICESUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATIONTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS CONCERNING TYPE AND LOCATION OFUTILITIES HAS BEEN DESIGNATED UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL 'C'.THESE QUALITY LEVELS WERE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02. ENTITLED"STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA".PROJECTLOCATIONGENERAL SITE WORK NOTES1. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OR DESIGNATEDSTAGING AREAS.2. ALL CONTROL OF WATER AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BESEQUENCED, INSTALLED, AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR.3. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STORMWATER POLLUTIONPREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) FOR THE PROJECT. SEE SWPPP PLAN AND NOTES FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION.4. THE ONSITE CLAY AND SILT LADEN SOILS ARE RELATIVELY IMPERVIOUS AND ARECONDUCIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ZONES OF PERCHED WATER.5. ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS INSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITSSHALL REMAIN OPEN FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.6. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN IS BASED ON A SITE SURVEY PERFORMED BYSCHOBORD LAND SERVICES INC DATED 11-29-2019.GENERAL EARTHWORK NOTES1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF TREES/SHRUBS NOT MARKED FORREMOVAL, INCLUDING MINIMIZING DISTURBANCE OF SOILS WITHIN THE TREES' DRIPLINEZONES. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STOCKPILE MATERIAL INSIDE THE TREE DRIPLINES.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES NOT BEING MARKED FORREMOVAL.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL DEMOLITION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKWITH OWNER.4. NO CONCRETE OR RUBBLE SHALL BE BACKFILLED ONSITE. BURNING OF DEBRIS ON SITESHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.THE QUENTINST. LOUIS PARK, MNSITE, GRADING, DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL,UTILITIES, AND LANDSCAPINGFORFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC000COVER SHEETBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDWSHEET INDEXSHEET NO.DESCRIPTIONC000COVER SHEETC100 EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS PLANC200 SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL - PHASE IC201 SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL - PHASE IIC210SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL DETAILSC211SWPPP NARRATIVEC300SITE PLANC400GRADING PLANC410ACCESSIBLE ROUTE PLANC411ACCESSIBILITY DETAILSC500UTILITY PLANC900DETAILSC901DETAILSC902BMP DETAILSARCHITECTBENJAMIN METZDORFF, RACOLLABORATIVE DESIGN GROUP, INC.125 Main Street SE, Ste. 240Minneapolis, MN 55414(612)332-3654 OFFICELANDSCAPE ARCHITECTJONATHAN BLASEGPEBL.3243 Winpark DriveNew Hope, MN 55427(763)544-8002 OFFICE59 CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C100 - EC & REM.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:41 PM( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINKnow what'sRCOPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)GENERAL SITE DEMOLITION AND CLEARING NOTES:LEGENDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEREMOVALSLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTMSANWDRAINTILEGAS LINEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICGTELEPHONESWALEWETLANDSPOT ELEVATIONFLARED END SECTION OUTLETT800.00RIP RAPSIGN & BOLLARDADA PAVEMENT MARKINGBUILDINGOVERHEAD ELECTRICFLARED END SECTION INLETCOLIGHT POLESOIL BORINGSPARKING STALL COUNTCURB AND GUTTERREMOVE EXISTINGBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTBUILDING REMOVALSAWCUTREMOVE PIPETREE PROTECTIONREMOVALREMOVALCONCRETE REMOVALFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC100EXISTING CONDITIONS &REMOVALS PLANBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDW60 COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C200 - EROS.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:42 PMKnow what'sRLEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSTMDRAINTILESWALEWETLANDFLARED END SECTION OUTLETRIP RAPCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETINLET PROTECTIONBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETGUTTER OUT CURBSILT FENCESFSOIL BORINGSDIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOWBIO-ROLLGENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:ITEMSILT FENCEUNITLINEAR FEETQUANTITY300JERSEY BARRIER LINEAR FEET295CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EACH 1INLET PROTECTION DEVICE EACH 7TREE PROTECTION FENCE EACH 11PHASE I EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIESBIO LOGLINEAR FEET195( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC200SEDIMENT & EROSIONCONTROL - PHASE IBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDWTREE PROTECTION FENCE61 CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C200 - EROS.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:42 PMKnow what'sRCOPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)LEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSTMDRAINTILESWALEWETLANDFLARED END SECTION OUTLETRIP RAPCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETINLET PROTECTIONBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETGUTTER OUT CURBSILT FENCESFSOIL BORINGSDIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOWBIO-ROLLGENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES:ITEMUNITQUANTITYPHASE II EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIESPAVEMENT AREA 7,299 SFBUILDING AREA27,583 SFSEEDING AREA16,941 SFPRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 30,839 SFPOST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 42,523 SFAREA SUMMARY( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC201SEDIMENT & EROSIONCONTROL - PHASE IIBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDWDISTURBED AREA 59,464 SFSILT FENCELINEAR FEET475JERSEY BARRIER LINEAR FEET330CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EACH 1INLET PROTECTION DEVICE EACH 12TREE PROTECTION FENCE EACH 11BIO LOG LINEAR FEET145TREE PROTECTION FENCE62 COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C300 - SITE.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:43 PMKnow what'sRPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONCURB & GUTTERSWALEWETLANDSIGN & BOLLARDADA PAVEMENT MARKINGSTANDARD DUTY ASPHALTHEAVY DUTY ASPHALTCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE PAVINGBUILDINGLIGHT POLESOIL BORINGSPARKING STALL COUNTGENERAL GEOMETRIC AND PAVING NOTES:SIGNAGE AND MARKING NOTES:SITE DATA( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINLEGENDFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC300SITE PLANBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDWDOG RUNAGGREGATE PATHWAYVEHICLE MANEUVERING EXHIBIT CUTOUT:63 COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C400 - GRAD.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:44 PMKnow what'sRPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSTMDRAINTILESWALEWETLANDSPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE SLOPEFLARED END SECTION OUTLET800.00800.00RIP RAPBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETGUTTER OUT CURBEOFEMERGENCY OVERFLOWSOIL BORINGS800.00GENERAL GRADING NOTES:KEY NOTES:( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINLEGENDFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC400GRADING PLANBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDW64 CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C400 - GRAD.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:44 PMKnow what'sRCOPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)PROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURTOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR802800802800CURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSTMDRAINTILESWALEWETLANDSPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE SLOPEFLARED END SECTION OUTLET800.00800.00RIP RAPBUILDINGFLARED END SECTION INLETGUTTER OUT CURBEOFEMERGENCY OVERFLOWSOIL BORINGS800.00GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY NOTES:ADA ROUTEADA LANDINGXXXX ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SPOT ELEVATIONS( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINLEGENDFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC410ACCESSIBLE ROUTEPLANBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDW65 COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATION01/24/2020FINAL PUD SUBMITTAL#01DESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBENCHMARKS (BM)CADD USER: Benjamin Lucas FILE: C:\USERS\BLUCAS\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\191103 - CROWE APARTMENT PUD\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C500 - UTIL.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 1/24/2020 3:45 PMKnow what'sRLEGENDPROPOSEDPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONCURB & GUTTERSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTMSAN|WDRAINTILEGAS LINEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICGGTELEPHONESWALEWETLANDFLARED END SECTION OUTLETTTRIP RAPBUILDINGOVERHEAD ELECTRICFLARED END SECTION INLETCOCOLIGHT POLEEOFEMERGENCY OVERFLOWSOIL BORINGSELEVGENERAL UTILITY NOTES:( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALESBINFINAL4900 CEDAR LAKE RD, ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416BENJAMIN LUCASXX.XX.1946653191103THE QUENTINCEDAR PARTNERS, LLC.12/18/19BJLC500UTILITY PLANBJLST. LOUIS PARK, MNMDW66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 GSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN SAN SANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWPLAN VIEWNOTES:ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLEDACCORDING TO THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. AFTER DEMOLITION OR AS NECESSARY,TREE PROTECTION FENCING MAY BE RELOCATED WITH APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED FORTHE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE ANY MATERIALS OR PARK ANY VEHICLES IN TREE PROTECTIONZONES. THE FENCE SHALL PREVENT TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES,EQUIPMENT, STOCKPILES AND SUPPLIES FROM HARMING VEGETATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PROTECTIONTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEANLY CUT ALL ROOTS EXPOSED BY GRADING AS DIRECTED BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS.6' MAX6' MAX. POST SPA C I N G3' MINIMUM6' IDEALFROM DRIPLINEDRIPLINEDRIPLINE1.2.3.4.4900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD4900 CEDAR LAKE ROADST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PUDSHEET NUMBERSHEET NAMEOVERVIEWISSUANCE: PUDPROJECT NAME: 4900 CEDARPROJECT NUMBER: 1924DATE:DRAWN BY: LP/JBCHECKED BY: LP/JBREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATENO.STAMPI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and that iam a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.PRINTED NAME: JONATHAN BLASEGDATE: 12.18.2019LICENSE NUMBER: 56704SIGNATURE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUD12.18.20191FINAL PUD12.18.20192PEBL DESIGN3243 Winpark DriveNew Hope, MN 55427t: 763.544.8002www.pebl.designL000TREE PRESERVATIONPLANScale:011" = 20' - 0"TREE PRESERVATION PLAN0020'40'16", 13" TWIN TRUNK SILVER POPLAR14" SILVER POPLAR32" BUR OAK28" BUR OAK10" HONEYLOCUST14" HONEYLOCUST10" HONEYLOCUST10" HONEYLOCUST10" HONEYLOCUST30" SILVER MAPLE26" ELM6" ELM12" ELM6" ELM8" BOXELDER16" BOXELDER8" BOXELDER10" BOXELDER14" SILVER POPLAR6" ELM6" BOXELDER8" BOXELDER10" SILVER POPLAR20" BOX ELDER8" BOX ELDER12" BOX ELDERTREE LEGENDTREE TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTEDTREE TO BE REMOVEDScale:02NOT TO SCALETREE PROTECTION DETAILS76 4900 CEDAR LAKE ROAD4900 CEDAR LAKE ROADST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PUDSHEET NUMBERSHEET NAMEOVERVIEWISSUANCE: PUDPROJECT NAME: 4900 CEDARPROJECT NUMBER: 1924DATE:DRAWN BY: LP/JBCHECKED BY: LP/JBREVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATENO.STAMPI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervision and that iam a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.PRINTED NAME: JONATHAN BLASEGDATE: 12.18.2019LICENSE NUMBER: 56704SIGNATURE:NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUD12.18.20191FINAL PUD12.18.20192PEBL DESIGN3243 Winpark DriveNew Hope, MN 55427t: 763.544.8002www.pebl.designL100LANDSCAPE SITE PLANScale:011" = 20' - 0"LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN0020'40'GENERAL NOTES1. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING, UTILITIES, EROSION CONTROL,HARDCOVER/PARKING LAYOUT, PROJECT EXTENTS/ BOUNDARIES ANDDISTURBED SOIL RESTORATION AREAS.2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITHEXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THE ATTENTIONOF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAYCOMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES ANDREGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS,WALKWAYS, TREES, LAWNS, AND OTHER SITE FEATURES DESIGNATED TOREMAIN DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALLBE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATIONS OFUNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THENECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.8. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION ANDPLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.9. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHES DONOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.10. EXISTING CONTOURS, PAVEMENT, VEGETATION, UTILITIES AND OTHERFEATURES ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DISCREPANCIESPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANTMATERIAL SELECTIONS AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHTNEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY.UNDESIRABLE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS OR SITE CONDITIONS SHALLBE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO BEGINNING OF WORK.12. ALL PLANTING BEDS NOT CONTAINED BY STRUCTURES, CURB OR PAVINGMUST BE EDGED WITH COMMERCIAL GRADE STEEL EDGING (5" H x 316").13. ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED (SEE L000) (EXISTINGTREES ARE DRAWN AT NORMAL MATURE CROWN DIAMETER AND THISDOES NOT REFLECT EXISTING CROWN SIZES, SEE SURVEY).PLANTING NOTES1. PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITIONOF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES ATTHE SPECIFIED HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO 'V'CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' FEETABOVE THE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGINGBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.2. EXISTING BLVD TREES TO BE FENCED OFF AND PROTECTED DURINGCONSTRUCTION3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTIED BY THE CONTRACTOR FORA PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER OWNER/ARCHITECT'S WRITTENACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAYOCCUR PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BETHE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.4. NO PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING ANDCONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA5. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL TURF ANDSEEDED AREAS. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES OF PLANTING SOILCONSISTING OF 1/3 TOPSOIL, 1/3 SAND, AND 1/3 COMPOST IN ALL SHRUBAND PERENNIAL BEDS.6. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS AND/OR AS DIRECTED IN THE FIELD BY THE ARCHITECT. THEARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING LOCATIONS OF PLANTMATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING.7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS.8. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES FROM THE GROUND TO THE FIRSTBRANCH. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVYWATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE.WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TODECEMBER 1ST AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER MAY 1ST.9. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON ORLATIN NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BEREMOVED PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL.10. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQ) IN ALLPLANTING BEDS FOLLOWED BY 3" OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH TOPPING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.11. ALL SEEDED AREAS AND PLANTINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT SCOPE MUSTBE IRRIGATED OR WATERED VIA TEMPORARY HOSE BIBS THROUGH THEESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.TURF/SOD NOTES1. SOD ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ANDGRADING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE2. WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEEDSHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURBETC.3. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVESTAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR DRAINAGESWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER SOD THOROUGHLY IMMEDIATELY AFTERINSTALLATION. THEN WATER SOD DAILY FOR THE FIRST 30 DAYSFOLLOWING INTALLATION.IRRIGATION NOTES1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATIONLAYOUT PLAN SPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHENBIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT SODDED/SEED ANDPLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREASDIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION.2. SHRUBS AND PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIPIRRIGATION. SOD TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY. RAIN GARDENS NOTTO BE IRRIGATED.3. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AWATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THEPROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIALS GROWTHREQUIREMENTS.4. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS ANDCOMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGEAROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALLBE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACEDRAINAGE IN ALL PLANTING AREAS.5. COORDINATE IRRIGATION SLEEVING LOCATIONS WITH GENERALCONTRACTOR.6. RAIN SENSORS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN.7. IRRIGATION LIMITS TO EXTEND TO STREET BACK OF CURB. IRRIGATIONSHALL NOT OVER SPRAY PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR PAVED SURFACES.BUILDING, SEE ARCHCEDAR LAKE ROADQUENTIN AVENUEOLD CEDAR LAKE ROADPROPERTY LINET11T11T21T21T11T11T11T21T21T2130'T36T42T422T522T616T66S115S251S358P1106P1115P168G186G136G21000G2560SO-SM1-SM1-SM1-SM1-SM1-SM2-SM2-BERMBERMBERMBERMPATIODOG RUN, SURFACING TBD.4' HIGH BLACK POWDERCOATED ALUMINUM PICKETPERIMETER FENCE WITHGATE(3) BIKE RACKSPARKINGBENCH(3) BIKE RACKSPROPOSED BIKE PATHEXISTING BIKE PATHEXISTING TREE,TYPICALT711NOTE: OFFSET OF SHRUB COUNTWe would like the Natural Resources Coordinator to consider our variety ofperennial plants to offset the project’s shortfall of shrubs. Our plan is currently 380shrubs short of the requirement. Per our perennial list we are proposing to install1,560 Little Bluestem Grasses and 122 Miscanthus Flame Grass; these 1682grasses could be considered as an offset for the following reason:xYear round appeal: these grasses will not be cut down in the winter and thereforewill provide wind break and habitat, reaching average heights of 2-4 feet.xBiomass: these grasses have root structures that reach upwards of 7 feet indepth, therefore significantly improving the soil quality and creating “habitat” formircro-organisms relevant to long-term soil health and fertile ground.xStormwater Benefits: due to the the physical traits of these grasses they promoteretention and infiltration of the stormwater, minimizing the output into the city’ssystem.xLong life: these grasses require zero maintenance once established and areself-sustaining via re-seeding (bluestem) or rhizomatic spreading (flame grass).Additional considerations for offset would be the 7,000 square feet of area beingseeded with a pollinator species mix, this includes a variety of natives: 7 differentgrasses, 1 sedge, and 37 forbs. Other perennial plantings include 289 astilbe(~18” height) and 8,000 square feet of no mow fescue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rom:Tim Brausen To:litrev55@yahoo.com; Jacquelyn Kramer; Karen Barton; Sean Walther; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: Proposed building project for Quentin & Old Cedar Lake Rd Date:Monday, January 27, 2020 11:21:14 AM Thank you for your comments on this matter. Our city is enhanced by residents that actively participate in our governance and share their opinions with City leaders. I assume you are commenting on the proposed Cedar Place development at 4900 Cedar Lake Road. By copy of this email I am forwarding this comment to the Community Development staff member handling this matter, Jacqueline Kramer, along with other interested parties at City Hall, so that it is part of the official record presented to the Planning Commission when this matter is scheduled for public hearing. Thanks for contacting me. Regards - Tim Tim Brausen St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member Telephone: 952-451-8492 Sent from my iPad On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:11 AM, Joan Hancock-Dow <litrev55@yahoo.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a long time resident (42 years) & board member of cedar trails west Ifeel strongly that the ENTRANCE to this building should not be cedar lake rd but rather OLD Cedar Lake rd. Joan Hancock-Dow. 4833 Cedar Lake rd 612-644-2344 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 79 From:Jon Kuskie To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:RE: Cedar Place Date:Friday, January 24, 2020 9:21:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you SO much Jacquelyn!! I hope you have an awesome weekend too! Jon Kuskie Director of Sustainability and National Initiatives Piedmont Office Realty Trust 800 Nicollet Mall¦Suite 3050¦Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct: 612.852.5525 jon.kuskie@piedmontreit.com From: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:12 AM To: Jon Kuskie <jon.kuskie@Piedmontreit.com> Subject: RE: Cedar Place I think it’s accurate to describe the plan having an extension to the existing trail. There’s no new crossing over the railroad, at least not with this project. Happy I could help. Have a great weekend! Jacquelyn Kramer (she/her/hers) Associate Planner | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.928.1375 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Jon Kuskie <jon.kuskie@Piedmontreit.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:04 AM To: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Subject: RE: Cedar Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This is perfect Jacquelyn, Thank you! So – there is no “new” connection to the bike path system, merely access to the existing pathway, correct? That makes sense, but the neighbors seem to think there is a new crossing over the railroad or something. I thought that would be illogical. I really appreciate all of your help!! Jon Kuskie Director of Sustainability and National Initiatives Piedmont Office Realty Trust 800 Nicollet Mall¦Suite 3050¦Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct: 612.852.5525 jon.kuskie@piedmontreit.com From: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:51 AM To: Jon Kuskie <jon.kuskie@Piedmontreit.com> Subject: RE: Cedar Place Good morning Jon, Thanks for reaching out to me regarding the Cedar Place project. There is a small on-grade parking lot north of Cedar Lake Road, east of the building, that would be used by guests only. Resident parking takes place inside the building on two levels. The plan does meet city requirements for number of parking spaces for both vehicles and bicycles. The developer intends to market the project to folks who use transit and biking. There’s a couple of high frequency bus lines that serve the site, and the building will have a bicycle hub for residents. These features should help lessen the traffic impact on the neighborhood. I’ve attached an image of the landscape plan that shows the trail connection along the west side of the site. The existing apartment building east of the site will remain. It’s outside the project area, so no changes will occur to that property. Hopefully I’ve fully answered your questions. Please let me know if there’s any more information you’d like about the project. Thanks. Jacquelyn Kramer (she/her/hers) Associate Planner | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.928.1375 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. 80 From: Jon Kuskie <jon.kuskie@Piedmontreit.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:05 AM To: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Subject: Cedar Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Jacquelyn, I was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting last night about Cedar Place. I live at 1660 Princeton Ave. S., within 500 feet of this development. My neighbors are concerned about increased traffic in the Cedarhurst neighborhood and parking for the 86 units being proposed by Cedar Place. Are you able to confirm if an on-grade parking lot is proposed for the north side of Cedar Lake Road, along the railroad tracks? Also, is there any rendering of the connection to the Cedar Lake trail system? That would seemingly be a huge benefit to our neighborhood. One item that may calm neighborhood fears is the understanding of the existing apartment structure that resides to the east of the Cedar Place development. Do you know if that apartment building is staying in-tact, or is it being demolished as part of this development? From the plans on your website, it appears the there would be room to allow the existing apartment structure to stay, which would ultimately be a good thing. However, neighbors attending the meeting last night indicated that the renderings suggested it would not be kept, and therefore the additional height of Cedar Place would be detrimental to our neighborhood.. If you could provide some clarity for me, I will happily inform the neighbors prior to the City meeting on the 5th. Thank you very much! Jon Kuskie Director of Sustainability and National Initiatives Piedmont Office Realty Trust 800 Nicollet Mall¦Suite 3050¦Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct: 612.852.5525 jon.kuskie@piedmontreit.com 81 82