The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021/01/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION WEBEX VIDEOCONFERENCE 6:00 P.M. JANUARY 20, 2021 All meetings of the St. Louis Park planning commission will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means until further notice. This is in accordance with a local emergency declaration issued by Mayor Jake Spano March 16, 2020 in response to the coronavirus (COVID -19) pandemic. This is in accordance with the local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID -19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056. All members of the St. Louis Park planning commission will participate in the January 20, 2021 planning commission meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the planning commission’s regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can monitor this meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslppc and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859) or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the board of zoning appeals and planning commission with commissioners and staff participating from multiple locations. Those who wish to provide comments during the public hearing for: • Sign zoning code amendments, call 952-562-2886 • I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments , call 952-562-2887 Calls will be taken and heard by the commission in the order received. AGENDA 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of minutes – January 6, 2021 3. Hearings 3a. Sign zoning code amendments Applicant: Audrey Janzen Case No.: 20-30-ZA 3b. I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Applicant: Mary Loeffelholz Case No.: 20-37-ZA 4. Other Business 4a. SLP Living – final plat of A.P.H.A. Addition Applicant: Mortenson Development, Inc. Case No.: 20-32-CP, 20-33-S, 20-34-PUD 1 Meeting of January 20, 2021 Planning commission agenda 5. Communications 6. Adjournment 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. 2 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 6, 2021 – 6:25 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther, Jennifer Monson 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of December 2, 2020 Commissioner Weber made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Eckholm seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 3. Public Hearings A. Texa-Tonka Apartments Applicant: Texa-Tonka Apartments LLC/Paster Properties Case Nos: 20-26-CP, 20-27-S, 20-28-PUD Jennifer Monson, planner, presented the staff report. She explained the applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat and preliminary and final PUD and noted these requests in detail. Ms. Monson stated staff recommends approval subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Weber asked about utility construction and traffic in the area and at the Minnetonka and Texas intersection. He also asked if there is a buffer between the proposed residential doors facing Minnetonka Boulevard and the public sidewalk . Ms. Monson stated the developers will need to obtain permits for work in the right -of-way and that typically lanes are not permitted to shut down entirely. She added that there is a grade change and ample landscaping between the residential units and the public sidewalk. 3 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Jan. 6, 2021 Page 2 Sean Walther added the right -of-way dedication provides enough space to accommodate a future right-hand turn lane and a bike lane. Commissioner Beneke asked if this will be 20% affordable housing and that would allow developer to apply for tax increment financing (TIF) funds. Ms. Monson stated there are multiple ways for TIF to be approved, including a redevelopment district or a TIF housing district. A housing TIF district requires 20% of the housing units to be affordable to households earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI). Commissioner Eckholm asked what the cost will be for the townhomes. Mr. Sturdivant, the applicant, clarified the townhomes will not be for sale; they will rented, and indicated the final rental rates have not been determined as the project will not be delivered to the market until 2022. He also stated some of the units will be affordable at 50% AMI and the remainder will be at market rate, depending on the market. Chair Kraft asked how the development responds to the small area plan for Texa Tonka and fit s in with community feedback. Ms. Monson stated the plan showed a 3-story building on the site with 18,000 square feet commercial as well as townhomes . She added the community feedback was overwhelmingly in favor of mid -size housing as well as architectural style to blend in with the rest of the mid-century style in the Te xa Tonka area. She said of those that opposed the development shown, half of those wanted to see less density and shorter buildings and half indicated they would support higher density and taller buildings. Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. Scott Breyfogle, 2904 Sumter Ave., stated that he has concerns about increased traffic on Sumter Avenue and parking in front of homes. He is concerned about property taxes and how this proposal will affect property taxes for homes on Sumter, and that he has concerns about construction noise. There are several people that work from home on Sumter and that construction will cause noise pollution. John Honsa, 2931 Sumter, stated that he is a 20-year resident and that many people who responded to the city’s survey did not live in the neighborhood. He had concerns about a 5-story building and the view and privacy from Sumter 4 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Jan. 6, 2021 Page 3 Avenue toward the east side of the building since there are no trees in Rainbow Park between Sumter and the property. He also voiced concerns about north bound traffic on Texas/Virginia/Cedar Lake Road, stating that turning onto Cedar Lake Road is already difficult. Gina Brown stated that she lives immediately south of the dentist at 3011 Texas and is supportive of the project and more residential in the area in general, but wanted to echo voices that were coming out of the neighborhood that she would prefer a three story building rather than a 4-5 story building. She also stated that she would prefer to see more affordable units, and that what is provided is not enough for an affordable family area. One caller could not be heard at all and was asked to call back. Commissioner Weber asked if there is enough parking at the development for all residents, given the underground parking. He asked if this would be a concern to residents in the nearby area. Ms. Monson stated the development has four more parking spaces than is required by code. She stated staff does not anticipate any overflow parking and there is no parking on Texas Avenue due to the bike lane. She stated the developer is providing 134 parking spaces on site and no overflow parking is anticipated onto area side streets. Darla Hoffer, 3024 Sumter Ave., stated she lives two blocks from the development. She has concerns about inappropriate height and a 5-story building, and is concerned about people being to see into backyards. The audio for Ms. Hoffer’s call was poor. Ms. Monson stated that Ms. Hoffer submitted a comment letter prior to the commission’s meeting, which had five points of concern including height, privacy, and taxes. She stated the letter was shared with the commission prior to the meeting. Mr. Walther stated because of technical difficulties on the calls this evening, the public will be allowed to comment at the city council meeting and are also invited to contact staff with their comments, which will then be passed on to the commission and the council as well. The Chair closed the public hearing. Chair Kraft directed any additional callers to call during the city council meeting to voice any concerns they have. 5 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Jan. 6, 2021 Page 4 Commissioner Weber added public comments could possibly be made on a city hall voice mail and recorded, and then passed on to the commission and council as well. Commissioner Eckholm agreed with both Mr. Walther and Commissioner Weber. Chair Kraft directed staff to have the public reach out to Ms. Monson at city hall or on the city website . Commissioner Eckholm stated he likes this development, adding he also lives in the area. He stated this is a great use of the site and he enjoys how the area is coming back to life . He stated he is impressed with the commitment to electric vehicle chargers and likes the design features that Paster has included to fit the vision of the small area plan . Commissioner Weber agreed adding putting this next to a park is wonderful. He again noted the intersection and asked staff to be thoughtful of turn lanes and mid -block crossing lights in the area. Commissioner Beneke also supported the plan stating all the details were well thought out. He stated it is a well-thought-out plan and it is exciting to see the area being built out. Chair Kraft agreed, and stated she supports the project which will reactivate the intersection, and the townhomes, businesses and the architecture responds well to the neighborhood, while the character fits in well with the mall across the street. Commissioner Dagane added he is excited also about the project stating it adds value to the area and helps lower-income families and he will support this project. Commissioner Weber made a motion, Commissioner Eckholm seconded, recommending approval of the changes as proposed by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. B. SLP Living, 9908 and 9920 Shelard Parkway Applicant: Mortenson Development, Inc. Case Nos: 20-32-CP, 20-33-S, 20-34-PUD 6 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Jan. 6, 2021 Page 5 Jacqu elyn Kramer, associate planner, presented the staff report. She noted the developer is asking for approval of a comprehensive plan amendment, a preliminary plat, and PUD amendment ordinance . Ms. Kramer stated the council approved of the development in March 2018, but that based on the market impacts of Covid -19 and other factors, the project has changed. She stated 20% of the multi-family units will be affordable at 50% AMI. She stated 233 units are proposed. There is on level of parking on ground floor and 6 levels of living space above . Ms. Kramer stated staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary plat, and the PUD amendment ordinance subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Beneke asked about parking restrictions at the development. Ms. Kramer stated a draft parking plan was submitted which deals with impacts of parking on neighbors. She noted one of the criteria is the number of cars per unit can be limited . Commissioner Weber asked if the development is surrounded mostly by commercial buildings . Ms. Kramer stated to the west of the site is a condo building with some offices, and to the north there is some office and further north is more multi-family residential. Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. There were no callers. The applicant, Brent Webb, Mortenson Construction thanked St. Louis Park and city staff for their guidance on this project. He noted their website is updated ongoing related to this development and they are open to any questions from the commission or residents. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eckholm stated he likes to see highest and best use on sites, and this is an excellent way to get more residents in St. Louis Park . He stated he typically does not like to see so much parking on a site but recognizes this is the nature of this type of project adding he is in support of this project. Chair Kraft agree d, adding this project makes sense for this site, against the highway and it provides more variety of residences for folks. She stated it is easily 7 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Jan. 6, 2021 Page 6 accessible to downtown and has good amenities and she is in support of the project. Commissioner Eckholm made a motion, Commissioner Weber seconded, recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary plat, and the PUD amendment ordinance subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4. Other Business A. Election of officers – each year the officers of chair and vice chair are rotated to build leadership skills among commissions . The new officers would start at the January 20, 2021 meeting. It was the consensus of the planning commission to nominate Commissioner Eckholm as chair and Commissioner Beneke as vice chair. B. Annual report and 2021 work plan – It was the consensus of the planning commission to approve the annual report and 2021 work plan as presented. 5. Communications Mr. Walther noted the 2021 schedule for planning commission meetings, with three meetings being moved due to holidays in 2021. Commissioner Weber noted the commission is meeting on the evening of a very traumatic day in the history of the country and he stated the commission went ahead to meet despite this and continued on with the democratic process. Mr. Walther noted the city is accepting applications to fill openings for all boards and commissions including the planning commission which has a re gular member vacancy as well as a youth vacancy. Mr. Walther stated he will also look at which commissioners are at the end of their term, as they will need to reapply to if they wish to be considered for reappointment for another three years. Commissioner Eckholm stated it is his and Chair Kraft terms are ending. 6. Adjournment 8 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Jan. 6, 2021 Page 7 The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. 9 10 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: January 20, 2021 Agenda item: 3a 3a Sign zoning code amendments Case Number: 20-30-ZA Applicant: Audrey Janzen, Operations Director Owner: The Excelsior Group Review Deadline: 60 days: 2/6/21 120 days: 4/7/21 Recommended motions: Chair to close the public hearing. Motion to recommend denial of the application to amend the zoning ordinance to allow rooftop signage. Summary of request: Audrey Janzen, on behalf of the Excelsior Group submitted an application to amend the zoning ordinance to allow rooftop signage when attached to a rooftop equipment screen wall. Existing regulations: The city does not allow rooftop signs as defined in the code below: Sign, rooftop means a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any other manner that allows more than ten percent of its area to extend above the wall or parapet wall of the side of the building on which the sign is located. This code clearly requires a sign to be located on the wall of the building. The code does not allow a sign to be installed on any structure located on the roof, including fences used to screen rooftop equipment. 10 West End PUD: The Excelsior Group applied for a planned unit development (PUD) in 2016 for the 10 West End office building. An 11-story, 350,000 square foot multi-tenant office building. The application submitted for the PUD included detailed plans for the building and property. The plans included sheet A302 Exterior Elevation – North and Sheet A051 Architectural Signage Plan. Both are pictured below. The exterior elevation shows what a sign mounted to the rooftop screening would look like. The second sheet, the architectural signage plan, is a detail sheet that shows a closeup of the signage and where it is proposed to be located. 11 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Sign zoning code amendments 12 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Sign zoning code amendments Section 3632(c)(3)c prohibits the PUD ordinance from being used to modify the signage requirements and requires the PUD to follow the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district as designated in the approving ordinance. Section 36-268-PUD 6 is the approving ordinance that regulates 10 West End. Section 36- 268(d)(3) regulates signage in PUD 6 and states that the sign regulations pertaining to the office district shall be applied. These two code sections prohibit rooftop signs from being permitted or approved in the PUD 6 (10 West End) development. As a result, sheet A051 Architectural Signage Plan was not approved or included in the list of official exhibits found in section 36-268(a) which states that the site is to be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the list of exhibits. After the PUD was approved, a building permit was applied for and approved in 2019. The building permit submittal did not include sheet A051 Architectural Signage Plan. The exclusion of this plan sheet is consistent with the PUD regulations, the PUD 6 (10 West End) ordinance and the fact that a building permit does not authorize signage. Signage is regulated by section 36-362, specifically section 36-362(f)(1) which states that a “sign permit” is required. History of rooftop signs: Rooftop signs were specifically prohibited in the Diversified Development District (DDD) in 1975. The purpose of the DDD was to allow the development of large properties in a manner consistent with an overall plan of the area. The DDD allowed a variety of residential, office, commercial and industrial uses. The DDD district included the land that is now West End and the Costco/Home Depot commercial area. This area was rezoned in 1992 to IP Industrial Park and O Office. Rooftop signs were prohibited citywide in 1985. The reasoning for prohibiting rooftop signs is included in the sign ordinance: Section 36-362(b)(4) Installation of signs on the tops of buildings constitutes a hazard during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services. The city adopted the ordinance prohibiting rooftop signs as a result of safety concerns and aesthetics. Below are a few historical pictures of commercial properties with rooftop signs in St. Louis Park . 13 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Sign zoning code amendments 14 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Sign zoning code amendments Administration of sign ordinance: The sign ordinance states that signage is important to give an opportunity for identification of community businesses and institutions. (Section 36-362(b)(2). It also states that uncontrolled and unlimited construction and placement of permanent signs adve rsely affects the image and aesthetic of the community and undermines economic value and growth [Section 36-362(b)(5)]. Rooftop signs were prohibited citywide in 1985 because they reflected poorly on the aesthetics of the community, were found to be a safety hazard and the city determined that businesses can reasonably meet their advertising needs without placing signs on the roof. Proposed amendment: The application submitted to the city proposes amending the following sections of code as indicated: 36-362 (b)(4) Installation of signs on the tops of buildings which are unsupported by a perimeter screen wall constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services. 36-362 (C) Sign, Scree n Wall means a sign attached to a non-structural wall incorporated into the aesthetic of the building, which surrounds the perimeter of the roof to conceal equipment. In the attached narrative from the applicant an updated amendment is proposed as follows: Section 36-362(c) (definitions) by changing the definition of Sign, rooftop in the following manner: “a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any other manner that allows more than ten percent of its area to extend above the a wall or parapet of the side of the building on which the sign is located.” The applicant also proposes to add a definition of wall that would qualify a wall as being opaque, structurally sound, provide for movement within the wall and is architecturally integrated into the rest of the building design. The applicant also provided the following answers to the questions asked in the application: What changed or changing conditions make the passage of this amendment necessary? When Screen wall systems are designed into the aesthetic of a building, signs attached to these screen walls reduce distraction from key elements of tenant and observer enjoyment (i.e. windows can be larger), positioned so that they are an intentional design feature of the building, and complement and enhance the building's architectural features. The placement of signage, when incorporated into the overall design, can be more purposeful than when placed on the facade of the building exterior. What is the expected effect of the proposed amendment? This change would allow property owners the ability to place signage on architectural screen walls thus increasing the impact and marketability of their signage offerings to prospective and 15 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Sign zoning code amendments existing tenants. This will increas ed impact will allow property owners to more successfully attract premium employers to properties located in St. Louis Park. What error, if any, in the existing ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendment? The current ordinance has a strict no roof signage clause and does not consider architectural screen walls installed as an intentional design element of the building. By creating architectural screen walls, a property owner is creating a cap to the property and enclosing all mechanical equipme nt within a single perimeter wall, thus increasing the aesthetic appeal of the property. This amendment is not meant for non-architectural screen walls placed around a single piece of roof equipment. What other circumstances justify the amendment? Allo wing this change to the City's signage code will encourage designers and property owners to take a more intentional design approach to screening their rooftop mechanical equipment, which will lead to a long-term improvement of the building stock in the city. Additionally, there is precedent in Minneapolis and St. Paul allowing Roof top Signage so this helps SLP Property owners be more competitive in attracting businesses. Staff analysis: The amendment proposes to allow a few businesses or buildings the advantage of placing signs on the rooftop. While drafting and administering the sign ordinance, the city places care in adopting regulations that are fair and equitable. In keeping with this, the city code includes a list of types of signs that are prohibited citywide, which includes rooftop signs. Adopting a regulation that gives the advantage of a rooftop sign to a few businesses is problematic. Apart from giving an advertising advantage to a few properties, it also introduces dimensional standards (conditions of approval) that need to be met to qualify for the rooftop sign. The applicant asks that the city allow rooftop signs by defining the term “wall” to include a structure that is opaque, structurally sound, provides for movement within that wall, and is architecturally integrated into the rest of the building design. Amending the code to create a definition that allows rooftop signs in specific circumstances such as when the rooftop screening fence is integral to the design of the building is problematic because it is subjective. It takes the city from a strong position of saying rooftop signs are not permitted for anyone to a weaker position that allows rooftop signs if the screening fence is integral to the design of the building, which is more subjective and more susceptible to challenge s. As noted by the applicant in the attached narrative, “The intentionality of Screen Wall design would lead to improved building aesthetics in St. Louis Park while providing a competitive edge over other cities in attracting employers.” Staff finds that if rooftop signage gives a competitive advantage to businesses located in St. Louis Park, it also gives an advantage to some businesses over other businesses located in St. Louis Park. 16 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Sign zoning code amendments Staff also finds that opening the door to allowing rooftop signs in some circumstances, and in a subjective manner, opens the door for businesses to argue for signage that will give them the competitive advantage over their neighbors. It may also lead to requests for exceptions to the standards and challenge s to the city’s interpretation of what meets the standards. The requirement that the rooftop screening be integral to the design of the building could also pose as a financial inequity. The code would allow the advantage of rooftop signage for those businesses that can afford to spend more to build a substantial structure on the roof with the intent of meeting the integral design requirement. Staff Recommendation: Motion to recommend denial of the application to amend the zoning ordinance to allow rooftop signage. Next Steps: The application is tentatively scheduled to go to the city council on February 16, 2021. Attachments: Applicant narrative Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 17 18 To: St. Louis Park Planning Commission, c/o Gary Morrison From: 10 West End, LLC, c/o Chris Culp RE: Section 36-362 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Code Date: January 13, 2021 Standing 10 West End, LLC, the owner of an 11-story, 350,000 SF multi-tenant office building located at 1601 Utica Avenue S. is leading an effort to modify the Sign Regulations in the St. Louis Park City Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”). This effort to make modifications is supported by real estate developers and St. Louis Park residents. Narrative In 2019, The Excelsior Group (“TEG”) and its project partners submitted detailed construction plans to the city for review and approval in order to obtain a building permit for the above referenced building at 1601 Utica Ave. S. Those plans were reviewed by many City departments including the zoning department. Many of the departments responded with comments and questions that were addressed by TEG and its project partners to the satisfaction of the City. The final plans were approved, and a building permit was issued. The building is now constructed, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the City. During the construction of the building, TEG and its project partners marketed the building for lease. During that marketing effort, TEG shared the City-approved building plans with prospective tenants and their advisors. TEG and prospective tenants used the City-approved plans to design their possible offices and evaluate the marketing opportunities afforded by the building’s location and design characteristics. The City-approved plans show, in multiple places, signage on walls at the top of the building. Appropriately, the marketing team and prospective tenants relied on the City-approved plans when they considered building signage as an attractive feature afforded by this particular building. After signing a lease with HDR, an engineering firm TEG, on behalf of HDR, submitted an application for a building sign to the City for approval. The sign application showed HDR’s logo on the walls at the top of the building in a location substantially similar to the location shown on the City-approved plans. The application was denied as it was determined that the sign was placed on a “Screen Wall,” which the City has determined is prohibited under Section 36-362 of the Zoning Code (despite Screen Wall not appearing in this section of the Zoning Code). This, of course, was a surprise to the development team, marketing team, property management team, and HDR given the fact that the City-approved plans clearly show a sign on the “Screen Wall.” TEG spoke with City staff about our options to fulfill the representations made to HDR. We are advised that there is a process for seeking a variance, but variances for signs on “Screen Walls” have historically been unsuccessful and the instance described above was not likely to justify a deviation from previous decisions. A second option would be to seek a change to the Zoning Code. We have chosen to seek a change to the Zoning Code as we believe it is in the best interest of the City, its residents, property owners, and employers. Request 10 West End, LLC is seeking to modify, if necessary, the Zoning Code as it relates to Signs. The reason for the change is to add clarity to the definition of a “wall.” Arguably, the sign placement discussed above is permissible under the current Zoning Code, but the historical interpretation of the Zoning Code suggests that the sign is not permissible. Thus, a clarification seems appropriate and important, especially because its “misplacement” was not identified at the time the building plans were approved and a building permit was issued for our project. 19 Currently, the Zoning Code outlines the reasons that Sign Regulations are necessary, including safety and aesthetics. The Zoning Code goes on to describe what characteristics are allowed in various areas of the city. One portion of the Zoning Code prohibits signs, as defined in the Zoning Code, from being placed on the Rooftop (Section 36-362(e)(3)). Another portion of the Zoning Code prohibits signs, as defined in the Zoning Code, from being placed on various parts and components of a building, including chimneys, rooftop equipment, observation towers, flagpoles, cooling towers, elevator penthouses, commercial antennas, communication towers, belfries, church spires, and cupolas. 10 West End, LLC recognizes that building aesthetics are compromised when signs placed on spaces that are too small for a legible sign, like including chimneys, observation towers, flagpoles, cooling towers, commercial antennas, communication towers, and spires. 10 West End, LLC also understands and supports the objective of safety and structural integrity. We, however, feel that the top of a building, as discussed in the Zoning Code as the top of the parapet, is too narrow. We believe that the top of the building should be the highest part of the perimeter of the building whether that space is occupiable or not, especially if that structural perimeter is integrated into the design of the building either at initial construction or as part of a building renovation. We are seeking to earn your support for a modification to Section 36-362(c) (definitions) by changing the definition of Sign, rooftop from “a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any other manner that allows mor than ten percent of its area to extend above the wall or parapet of the side of the building on which the sign is located” to “a sign attached to any roof or any sign attached to a building in any other manner that allows mor than ten percent of its area to extend above the a wall or parapet of the side of the building on which the sign is located.” Perhaps a definition of “wall” is necessary in this case. We believe a qualifying wall is a wall that is opaque, structurally sound, provides for movement within that wall, and architecturally integrated into the rest of the building design. This an important part of our design at 10 West End as the design of our wall on the roof went beyond simple screening, with the roof wall massing intentionally extending to affect the architectural shape of the top of the building. The simple change to the definition and, perhaps, the addition of a definition of “wall” for this section of the Zoning Code, would allow for much more clarity and would incent property owners and developers to be intentional in their design of what are commonly referred to as Screen Walls. The intentionality of Screen Wall design would lead to improved building aesthetics in St. Louis Park while providing a competitive edge over other cities in attracting employers. 20 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: January 20, 2021 Agenda item: 3b 3b I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Case Number: 20-37-ZA Applicant: Mary Loeffelholz Owner: Same Review Deadline: 60 days: 2/12/21 120 days: 4/13/21 Recommended motions: Chair to close the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial district as recommended by staff. Summary of request: Mary Loeffelholz, co -owner of Dampfwerk Distillery applied to amend the zoning ordinance to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use in the I-G General Industrial district. Dampfwerk Distillery and its cocktail room are located at 6311 Cambridge St reet. They opened a temporary outdoor seating area in 2020 as a result of the pandemic and the city emergency powers that allows businesses in the city to apply for temporary uses even though the use, or an aspect of the use, is not permitted by city codes. The Dampfwerk temporary outdoor seating area was approved to help the distillery adapt to the Minnesota Governor’s various orders for businesses to shut down or modify their operations. Dampfwerk is reviewing their future operations and desires to permanently operate an outdoor seating area after the pandemic restrictions are lifted. The I -G General Industrial district, however, does not allow outdoor seating. Therefore, the applicant proposes the attached zoning text amendment to allow outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial district with the listed conditio ns. While the amendment is proposed by a specific business, it is important to note that the amendment, if approved, would apply to all properties in the I-G General Industrial district. Therefore, it is important to consider the benefits and impacts of the amendment on all properties in the city that are zoned I-G General Industrial, not just the applicants. Summary of amendment: Outdoor seating is currently not allowed in the I-P Industrial Park district and the I-G General Industrial Park district , except employee break areas. There are, however, some uses in the I-G General Industrial district that might utilize outdoor seating such as Dampfwerk Distillery , Copperwing Distillery and Warehouse Winery. Therefore, the following amendment to the I-G General Industrial district is proposed so that the existing and future uses may utilize outdoor seating in a manner allowed by similar uses in other districts. Proposed zoning amendment for Section 36-244(e) Accessory Uses in the I-G General Industrial district: (10) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use with the following conditions: 21 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments a. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six- foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story above the principal use. b. If the outdoor seating area is located within 500 feet of a residence, then no speaker or other electronic device which emits sound, or the playing of any band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, or the use of any device to amplify the music of any band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, are permitted where the noise or music is plainly audible at the residence above the normal conversation level occurring in the outdoor seating area. c. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. The applicant is requesting the ability to provide outdoor music, recorded and/or live. As noted below in the existing outdoor seating regulations in other zoning districts, speakers and other electronic devices are not allowed when the outdoor seating is located within 500 feet of residential. While the city is concerned about noise becoming a nuisance to residential properties in the vicinity of the outdoor seating, staff conducted some research to see how, and if , other cities accommodate music in outdoor seating areas. Staff found that music is commonly allowed with a condition similar to what is proposed. The intent of the condition is to establish the conversation level as the limit of noise allowed. Therefore, music is allowed if it is not louder than the conversation typical of the outdoor seating area. This will limit the type of music allowed and the type of equipment allowed in some areas depending on the proximity to residential uses. Existing outdoor seating regulations: City of St. Louis Park allows o utdoor seating is currently allowed in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 General Commercial, O Office, BP Business Park, MX-1 Vertical Mixed -Use Mixed-Use, MX-2 Neighborhood Mixed-Use with conditions. The following conditions apply to each of the districts: • No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are permitted outside of the principal structure if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. • Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if located within 500 feet of a residential use. • Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. There is some variation on one condition that applies when the outdoor seating is adjacent to residential. In the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and C-2 General Commercial districts, the following condition applies in addition to those listed above: 22 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments • The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if it is adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if a residential dwelling is located above the principal use. In the O Office and BP Business Park districts outdoor seating is allowed adjacent to residential with the following condition: • The use is separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six- foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story above the principal use. The MX-1 Vertical Mixed -Use and MX-2 Neighborhood Mixed-Use districts do not have a condition regulating outdoor seating when located adjacent to residential. Instead, it has the following condition that is unique these districts: • Shall be directly adjacent to the structure containing the associated use. Zoning Map: The zoning map is attached for reference. The I-G General Industrial district is shaded dark gray and is primarily located in three areas of the city. The amendment, if approved, would apply to each of these areas as long as the business is able to meet the con ditions associated with the outdoor seating. The general location of the city’s I -G districts are described below. Louisiana Ave S and Oxford St: This area includes a variety of industrial uses along Oxford Street and a short section of Cambridge Street between Edgewood Ave nue South and the railroad tracks. This area is serviced by the Louisiana Ave nue light rail station. It includes uses such as the Municipal Service Center and Japs Olson both located west of Louisiana Avenue South. The above referenced Dampfwerk and Copperwing distilleries and Warehouse Winery, all located east of Louisiana Ave nue South along with other industrial uses. Highway 100 and County Road 25: This area includes the Nordic Ware facility and Extra Space self -storage. Southwest corner of Highway 100 and Cedar Lake Road: This area includes Westside Center and an autobody repair shop. There are two other small areas that include one industrial building at the south west corner of Alabama Ave nue South and 36th Street West used mainly for storage by Nordic Ware, but also includes the Jonny Pops manufacturing facility. There is also a property south of Cedar Lake Road near Edgewood Ave nue South which is used by the city as part of its streets and operations services. Recommendation: Staff recommends the following: Chair to close the public hearing. 23 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial district as recommended by staff. Next Steps: The ordinance is scheduled for a first reading on February 16, 2021. Attachments: Draft ordinance , zoning map Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 24 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Ordinance No. ___-21 Ordinance regarding outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial district The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, an application was received from Dampfwerk Distillery to amend the I -G General Industrial district to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use , and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (case no. 20-37-ZA), and Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City Code: Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-244(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text to the list of land use descriptions. (10) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use with the following conditions: a. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six- foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story above the principal use. b. If the outdoor seating area is located within 500 feet of a residence, then no speaker or other electronic device which emits sound, or the playing of any band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, or the use of any device to amplify the music of any band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, are permitted where the noise or music is plainly audible at the residence above the normal conversation level occurring in the outdoor seating area. c. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. 25 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect March 26, 2021. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021 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 February 16, 2021 Second Reading March 1, 2021 Date of Publication March 11, 2021 Date Ordinance takes effect March 26, 2021 26 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane (arrived 6:25 p.m.), Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber (arrived 6:30 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Courtney Erwin STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Mara Hynek STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:25 p.m. 2. Home occupations Mr. Morrison presented the report. He noted this is a priority discussion topic in the 2020 work plan for the commission and for the city council. He noted several previously raised topics for discussion lifting the prohibition on barbers/hairdressers as a home occupation allowing one or more outside employees, allowing home occupations in accessory buildings, allowing them occupy more than 10% of the principal building, and allowing residents of ADUs to conduct home occupations in the ADU they occupy. Mr. Morrison stated discussion about the uses and character of the residential neighborhood should also be discussed to provide context for other decisions. Commissioner Weber asked if the registration of land use requirement applies to people working from home now during the pandemic, such as home offices. Mr. Walther stated the registration of land use is required only when there are customers or students that come to the home. It does not apply to a home office if people living there are using the office. Commissioner Eckholm asked about machinery and/or equipment uses within the home. He stated this may need to be re-worded to be more permissive. Commissioner Weber noted the animal handling occupation and asked if this would be allowed as long as they stay within the city’s allowable three animal/pet limit. Mr. Morrison stated this can be discussed further. 27 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Commissioner Weber stated there would seem to be many examples of people who would be surprised they are breaking city rules with their home occupation. He stated he thinks about this being a first interaction with the city and the impression that would leave for them. Mr. Morrison stated staff typically will not contact the person unless a city staff person witnesses the violation. Mr. Walth er added, in practice, staff is not out doing house calls and aggressively searching for these types of violations but noted the city does regularly receive complaints from neighbors about home occupations that run afoul of the rules. A common one is car repair service; there are multiple cars being repaired or stored outside on a property in various states of repair. Commissioner Weber asked if the city has specified the language in the ADU ordinance that says the actual ADU is actually used primarily or only for the home occupation. Mr. Walther stated this was one of the reasons raised by city council for having this discussion. He stated right now it is a bit grey in this area as to how to interpret the code, so more clarity will need to come of this. Commissioner Beneke stated he is unclear as to what he would want to do with the ADU/home occupation, and this warrants more discussion. Chair Kraft stated she is in alignment with most of what has been discussed. She would have concerns with noises or odors but has no concerns about barber/beauty salons, daycares, or a 3D printer in a house. Commissioner Weber would also support some research into barber/beauty salons, as it serves a path of entry into business ownership, especially for communities that may not have access to commercial space. Commissioner Beneke added he agrees with this idea in general. Commissioner Dagane agreed with the comments made in the discussion as well and would have concerns also with what kind of business it was and traffic issues. Mr. Walther stated this topic will be researched further and brought to the council for input before the discussions are concluded with the commission. This will allow the commission to discuss after council and incorporate council comments in their deliberation. 1. Miscellaneous zoning amendments This topic will be brought back at the next study session since there was not time to consider it at this meeting. 2. Communications 28 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Title: I-G General Industrial zoning code amendments Commissioner Lynette Dumalag resigned from the commission and has been appointed to the city council to represent and 2nd ward after Anne Mavity’s resignation form the city council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 29 30 MINNETONKA BLVD EXCELSIOR BLVDCEDAR LAKE RD34TH ST W WALKER ST LAKE ST W 27TH ST W ALABAMA AVE STEXAS AVE SFRANCE AVE SOXFORD STFLAG AVE SFLORIDA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SIDAHO AVE SLIB R A R Y L N 41ST ST WJERSEY AVE SW O O D D A L E A V E SLOUISIANA AVE S38TH ST W 37TH ST W FORD RD KENTUCKY AVE SSHELARD PKWY CEDARLAKERDS35TH ST W VERNON AVE SGORHAM A V E PARK GLEN R D INGLEWOOD AVE SKIPLING AVE SBELT LINE BLVDBROWNDALEAVE39TH ST W CLUB RD MORNINGSIDE RDBRUNSWICK AVE SJOPPA AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N PARK PLACE BLVD S28TH ST WMELROSEAVE 25 1/2 ST W NORTH STZARTHAN AVE SBROOKSID E AVEMARYLAND AVE S31ST ST W 16TH ST W FORESTRD HAMILTON ST ZINRAN AVE SEDGEBROOK DRTOLEDO AVE SGOODRICH AVE B A S SWOOD RDUTICA AVE S1ST ST NW23RD ST W 361/2 ST W 36TH ST WELIOT VIEW RD 26TH ST W GLENHURST AVE S2ND ST NWXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE SAQUILALNS32ND ST W NEVADA AVE SM O N T E R E Y D R VIRGINIA CIR S NATCHEZ AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W 24TH ST WWESTWOODHILL S D R MEADOWBROOK RDVALLACH E R AVE DAKOTA AVE SSALEM AVE S22ND ST W LYNN AVE S43 1/2 ST W 40TH LN W 29TH ST W 40TH ST W OTTAWA AVE S25TH ST W BOONE AVE SW O O D D A L E A V E GAMBLE DR 30 1/2 ST W BR O W N L O W A V E BROOK AVE S34 1/2 ST W Q U E B E C A V E S14TH ST W BURDPL S TANLEN R D RALEIGH AVE SPARKLANDSRDMACKEY AVE SXYLONAVESSERVICERDP A R K C O M M O N S D RKILMER AVEVICTORIA W A Y SOUTH ST CEDARWOOD RDJORDAN AVE SP ARKER R D SUMTER AVE SCOLORADO AVE SDART AVE SUTAH AVE SAQUILAAVESCA V EL L A V ESKENTUCKYLN 22ND LN W 35 1/2 ST WRIDGE DRM O N I T O R S T BLACKSTONE AVE SVERMONT ST FORD LN RANDALL A V E 32 1/2 ST W EDGEWOOD AVE SWYOMING AVE ST A F T A V E S STEPHENS DRINDEPENDENCEAVES REPUBLIC A VEDECATURLN MONTEREY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S13TH LN W CAVEL LLN PAR K C E N T E RBLVD13 1/2 ST W PRINCETON AVE SPARKDALE DR OREGON AVE SPHILLIPS PKWYLANCASTERAVEGLENHURSTR DVIRGINIAAV E S SBHWY100STOWBHWY7YUKON AVE S33RD ST W MEADOWBRO O K BLV D HIGHWOODRD GLEN PLSUMTERDRHILLSBOROAVES24TH CT W EXCELSIOR WAYV IC T O RIAC R V WOOD L A N D D R QUEBECDR DECATUR AVE SBROOKLNMINNEHAHA C IRSBROOKV I EW DR CEDAR S T O AK LEAFDR FO R E S T L N 42 1/2 ST WHILLLNSFRONTAGE RDWOOD LN LOUISIANA CT SFAIRWAY LNOAKPARK V I L L A G E D R T E X A T O N KAAVEJEWISHCCTU R N A R O U N D ENSIGN AVE SV IC TORIA C I R WILLOW LN SBOONE CTAUTO CLUB WAY DEVANEY ST FREDERI C K A V E AQUILA CIR S OTTAWA PLWESTRIDGE LN24TH PL W SUNSET RIDGE RDFORD CIR TEXAS CIR S ID AHO AVES 23RD ST W 34TH ST W 28TH ST WPENNSYLVANIAAVES DAKOTA AVE S29TH ST WBLACKSTONE AVE S32ND ST W AQUILAAVES MARYLAND AVE S18TH ST W 23RD ST W GETTYSBURG AVE SLAKE ST W36TH ST W 31ST ST W 2 3 R D STWQUEBEC AVE S31ST ST WUTAH AVE S34TH ST W COLORADO AVE SXENWOOD AVE S33RD ST WOREGON AVE SJOPPA AVE SJERSEY AVE S25TH ST W 18TH ST W R A L E IG H A V E S 31ST ST W HIGHWAY 100 S33RD ST W WEBSTER AVE SCEDARLAKERDS R H O D E I SLANDAVESPENNSYLVANIA AVE SKIPLING AVE SSUMTER AVE SDAKOTA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SSUMTER AVE SUTICA AVE SPRI NCETONAVESNATCHEZ AVE S13TH LN W 31ST ST W ZARTHAN AVE S32ND ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SKENTUCKY AVE S16TH ST W 22ND ST WFORD RDOXFORD ST 23RD ST W VIRGINIAAVESDAKOTA AVE S25 1/2 ST W INGLEWOOD AVE S43 1/2 ST W 26TH ST W 31ST ST WZARTHAN AVE S27TH ST W VIRGINIAAVESSALEM AVE SYOSEMITE AVE S33RD ST W 41ST ST WJORDANAVES TOLEDO AVE SOTTAWA AVE S36 TH ST W RALEIGH AVE S 25TH ST WOREGON AVE S18TH ST W 37TH ST W FRANCE AVE S28TH ST W XENWOOD AVE SCOLORADO AVE SUTICA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SXYLON AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S37TH ST WNEVADA AVE S18THSTWBLACKSTONE AVE SBOONE AVE SCOLORADOAVES31ST ST W RHODE ISLAND AVE S23RD ST W LYNN AVE SQ U EBECAVESBRUNSWICK AVE S22ND ST W BRUNSWICK AVE S26TH ST W BROOKVIEW DR 40TH ST WDAKOTA AVE STEXAS AVE SKILMERAVE27TH ST W HAMPSHIRE AVE SZARTHAN AVE SHUNTINGTONAVES42ND ST W 22ND ST W 32ND ST W FRANKLIN AVE W 24TH ST W 2 5 T H ST W 29TH ST W RALEIGH AVE S16TH STW RHODE ISLAND AVE S16TH ST W OTTAWA AVE SVIRGINIAAVESQUENTIN AVE S35TH ST W 16 TH S T W UTAH AVE SALABAMA AVE SSUMTER AVE S33RD ST W PENNSYLVANI AAV E SYUKON AVE SBOONE AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SAQUILA AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE S14TH ST W XYLON AVE SCAVELL AVE S35TH ST WCOLORADO AVE S29TH ST W 39TH ST W OTTAWA AVE SXYLON AVE S14TH ST W OTTAWAAVESFLAG AVE SWEBSTER AVE SNEVADA AVE S37TH ST WUTAH AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SLYNN AVE SJOPPA AVE SALABAMA AVE S27TH ST WHAMPSHIRE AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S22NDSTW FLORIDA AVE SCAMBRIDGE ST 36TH ST W CAMBRIDGE ST RALEIGH AVE SXENWOOD AVE SRHODE I S L A N D A V E S 26TH ST W DAKOTA AVE SIDAHO AVE SQUEBEC AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE SSA L EM A V E S MEADOWBR O OKBLV DVIRGINIAAVES32ND ST W NATCHEZ AVE SQUEBEC AVE S28TH ST W WYOMINGAVESZARTHAN AVE S39TH ST W VERNON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SWALKERST41ST ST WYOSEMITE AVE S26TH ST W UTICAAVESMONTEREY AVE SALABAMA AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W AQU IL A A V E S28TH ST W 29TH ST W 16TH ST W WEBSTER AVE SUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SPUD 1 PUD 2 PUD 4 PUD3 PUD 5 PUD 6 PUD 8 PUD 7 PUD 9 PUD 17 £¤ ?A@ £¤ £¤ \]^ \]^ ?A@ ?A@ GWX GWX GWX ?A@ GWX ?A@ GWX GWX GWX Westwood HillsNature Center Cedar Manor School Minneapolis Golf Club Knollwood Mall Benilde-St.MargaretSchool Bass LakePreserve Wolfe Park MeadowbrookGolf Course Louisiana Oaks Park Aquila Park St. Louis ParkSenior High School St. Louis ParkMiddle School MethodistHospital JewishCommunity Center ShelardPark City Hall Dakota Park Peter HobartSchool KeystonePark Hannon Lake Victoria Lake Cobble CrestLake Westwood Lake LamplighterPond MeadowbrookLake South OakPond Twin Lake City of MinnetonkaCity of Plymouth City of Golden Valley City of Hopkins City of Edina City of MinneapolisTDM Zone ATDM Zone B Recreation Center Fire Station#2 Oak HillPark MunicipalService Center Park NicolletClinic Fire Station#1 PoliceStation MinnehahaCreek PUD 10 PUD 13 PUD 12 PUD 11 PUD 14 PUD 15 PUD 16 5 5 7 3 3 5 7 17 25 100 100 100 394 394 169 169 169 Official Zoning Map Effective: August 11, 2020 Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department Zoning Districts TDM boundary FloodFringe POS Park and Open Space R-1 Single-Family Residence R-2 Single-Family Residence R-3 Two-Family Residence R-4 Multiple-Family Residence R-C High-Density Multiple-Family Residence M-X Mixed Use C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 General Commercial BP Business Park O Office I-P Industrial Park I-G General Industrial PUD Planned Unit Development Floodplain FloodFringe Floodway Travel Demand Management Boundary ± 0 0.5 1 Miles PUD No. Ordinance No. 2471-15 2475-15 PUD-2 2483-15 2481-15 2502-16 PUD-4 2488-16 2489-16 2503-16 PUD-6 2501-16 2500-16 2517-17 PUD-8 2515-17 PUD-9 2518-17 PUD-10 2520-17 PUD-11 2531-18 PUD-12 2536-18 PUD-13 2538-18 PUD-14 2552-19 PUD-15 2582-20 PUD-16 2584-20 PUD-17 2588-20 PUD-1 PUD-3 PUD-5 PUD-7 31 32 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: January 20, 2021 Agenda item: 4a 4a SLP Living – final plat of A.P.H.A. Addition Location: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard Case Numbers: 20-32-CP, 20-33-S, 20-34-PUD Applicant: Mortenson Development, Inc. Owner: SLP Park Ventures LLC Review Deadline: 60 days: February 5, 2021 120 days: April 6, 2021 Recommended motions: Motion to recommend approval of the final plat subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Summary of request: Mortenson Development proposes a 233-unit, seven story apartment building to be called SLP Living. As part of the project, the applicant seeks city approval for a preliminary and final plat to create one new lot for multi-family residential use. Site information: Site area (acres): 3.11 acres Current use: Vacant land Surrounding land uses: North: parking ramp, office East: right -of-way South: right-of-way West: mixed-use commercial and multi- family residential Project site Highway 169 Interstate 394 33 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Title: SLP Living – final plat of A.P.H.A. Addition Current 2040 land use guidance Current & proposed zoning OFC- office PUD planned unit development ROW – right of way Proposed 2040 land use guidance RH - high density residential Background: Planning commission held a public hearing on the project on January 6, 2021. At that meeting the commission recommended approval of a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary plat and PUD amendment. For project details, please see the January 6, 2021 staff report. Present considerations: The applicant requests that the city approve a final plat to combine the existing parcels into one lot. Description : Lot 1, Block 1, A.P.H.A. Addition will have a lot area of 135,471 square feet or 3.11 acres. The proposed residential density for the site is 75 units per acre. Right of way dedication: No right of way dedication is proposed for this project. Easements: Drainage and utility easements are provided along all property lines as per the requirements of the city’s subdivision ordinance. There are five -foot easements along interior property lines; additional easement is provided in the southwest corner of the property over existing utility lines; and all other easements abutting city right -of-way are ten feet in width. Sidewalks: The city’s subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks along all streets. New sidewalk is provided along the south side of the property next to Wayzata Boulevard and will connect to existing sidewalk on the west side of the site. Park and trail dedication : No new parks are designated for this area in the comprehensive plan; therefore cash-in-lieu of land is recommended by staff. The 2020 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication feet at $1,500 per dwelling unit and the trail dedication feet at $225 per dwelling unit. At 233 units the fees total $401,925. The parks and recreation advisory commission (PRAC) will review the park and trail dedications for the proposed development on January 20, 2020. Staff find the final plat is in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat and it meets city requirements. Next steps: City council will consider the requested the comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and PUD amendment on February 1, 2021. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the A.P.H.A. f inal plat subject to the following conditions: 34 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Title: SLP Living – final plat of A.P.H.A. Addition 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of the planned unit development ordinance, approved Official Exhibits and City Code. 2. This approval is subject to city approval of the vacation of the easterly and southerly right -of-way parcels, and the developer successfully acquiring said vacated right-of-way parcels from the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. 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, boulevards, landscaping and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. 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 landscaping. iii. Access to the storm water management system shall be provided to the City for clean -out and periodic inspection purposes when warranted. iv. The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees in drafting and reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. v. 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 $349,500 for residential uses and the trail dedication fee of $52,425 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. 35 Regular meeting meeting of January 20, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Title: SLP Living – final plat of A.P.H.A. Addition f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (sidewalks, boulevards, etc.) and landscaping. 6. The on-site underground storm water management systems shall be privately owned and privately maintained. Access to the system shall be provided to the city for clean- out and inspection purposes when warranted. Supporting documents: final plat Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 36 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS A.P.H.A. ADDITION A.P.H.A. ADDITION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Mortenson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22 described as beginning at point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7 Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 and its Easterly extension a distance of 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 said Block 7; thence South 2 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 4 and the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 119.74 feet; thence South 64 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning. The boundary lines of above-described land have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19207. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1472181. ALSO: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22 described as beginning at a point on the most Southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet Easterly from the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most Southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West along said most Southerly line of Lot 1 to said West line (assuming said West line has a bearing of South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet; thence South 1 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said West line a distance of 144.56 feet; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 1 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 198.98 feet to the point of beginning. The boundary lines of the above-described land have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17713. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1472182. ALSO: Par 1: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, and that part of Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-23, which lies northerly of the southerly and southwesterly lines of said Parcel 44 and the northwesterly extension of said southwesterly line; westerly of the southerly extension of the West line of Lot 4, Block 7, Shelard Park; southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet easterly from the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most southerly line of Lot 1; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds East (assuming the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter has a bearing of South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) along said most southerly line of Lot 1 and its easterly extension 317.55 feet to the Northerly extension of the west line of Lot 4, said Block 7; thence South 02 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds West along said northerly extension of the west line of Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 4 a distance of 119.74 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 64 degrees 01 minute 24 seconds West a distance of 197.53 feet; thence South 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds West 139.87 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of commencement; thence South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West to the southerly line of said Parcel 44, and there terminating; and northerly of Line 1. Line 1 is described as follows: Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the west line of the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence easterly on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the north and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18 minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the easterly line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating. The northerly line of the above land has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Order Doc. No. T2062170 in Torrens Case No. 19207. ALSO: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, and that part of Parcel 44 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-23, which lies northerly of the southerly and southwesterly lines of said Parcel 44 and the northwesterly extension of said southwesterly line; easterly of the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1; southerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, Shelard Park distant 315.25 feet easterly from the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter as measured along said most southerly line of Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 54 seconds West along said most southerly line of Lot 1 to said west line (assuming said west line has a bearing of South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West) a distance of 315.25 feet; thence South 01 degree 11 minutes 16 seconds West along said west line 144.56 feet to a point 2.37 feet north of Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 77 degrees 38 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 214.20 feet; thence North 87 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East 104.50 feet to the intersection with a line bearing South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West from the point of commencement; thence South 01 degree 14 minutes 59 seconds West to the southerly line of said Parcel 44, and there terminating; and northerly of Line 1. Line 1 is described as follows: Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the west line of the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence easterly on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the north and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18 minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the easterly line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating. The northerly line of the above land has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Order Doc. No. T2062169 in Torrens Case No. 17713. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1472183. ALSO That part of Trunk Highway No. 12 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-23 described as follows: Beginning at right of way Boundary corner B3; thence on an assumed azimuth of 1 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds along the boundary line of said plat a distance of 86.85 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B4; thence deflect to the right 83.74 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B5, having a radius of 2083.24 feet, central angle of 2 degrees 18 minutes 11 seconds, chord azimuth of 48 degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds and chord distance of 83.73 feet; thence on an azimuth of 91 degrees 27 minutes 32 seconds a distance of 98.89 feet; thence southwesterly deflecting to the right on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 788.53 feet, delta angle of 15 degrees 42 minutes 58 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 229 degrees 07 minutes 59 seconds and chord distance of 215.62 feet to the East line of Parcel 44 as shown on said plat 27-23; thence north along said East line of Parcel 44 to the point of beginning. AND That part of Trunk Highway No. 12 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-23 which lies southwesterly and southerly of Line 1, said Line 1 being described as follows: Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B212 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23; thence Northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 13 minutes 27 seconds along the West line of the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 484.26 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B211 and the point of beginning of the line being described; thence Easterly on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds along the boundary of said Plat No. 27-23 a distance of 214.28 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B1; thence continue on an azimuth of 101 degrees 20 minutes 23 seconds 93.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 350.87 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the North and passing through Right of Way Boundary Corner B2 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23, having a radius of 763.94 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 18 minutes 56 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 70 degrees 47 minutes 34 seconds to the Easterly line of said Parcel 44; thence on an azimuth of 01 degree 05 minutes 15 seconds 7.37 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B3 as shown on said Plat No. 27-23 and there terminating. And northerly of the following described line and its easterly extension: Commencing at the point of intersection of the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, with the most southerly line of Lot 1, Block 7, SHELARD PARK; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 39 minutes 11 seconds West along said West line a distance of 187.99 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 788.53 feet, central angle of 7 degrees 43 minutes 57 seconds, chord bearing of South 78 degrees 42 minutes 56 seconds East to its intersection with the most westerly extension of the southerly line of said Parcel 44; thence easterly along said extension of the most southerly line of said Parcel 44 to its intersection with Line 1 described above, and said line there ending. Containing in all, 3.13 acres, more or less. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as A.P.H.A. ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use, the utility easements as created by this plat. www.wsbeng.com C.R. DOC. NO. In witness whereof, said Mortenson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______day of ______________, 20___. SIGNED: Mortenson Development, Inc. ____________________________________________ Bob Solfelt, Senior Vice President STATE OF ____________ COUNTY OF ____________ This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________________ by Bob Solfelt, Senior Vice President of Mortenson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. ___________________________________ __________________________ Notary Public, ____________ County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My commission expires __________________ I Jeffrey J. Rolfson do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this Plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Jeffrey J. Rolfson, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 49003 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, by Jeffrey J. Rolfson, a Licensed Land Surveyor. Notary Public, County, Minnesota Notary Printed Name My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL City Council, St. Louis Park, Minnesota This plat of A.P.H.A. ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of ____________________, 20___, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, St. Louis Park, Minnesota By: Mayor By: Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of ____________________, 20___. Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By: , Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of ____________________, 20___. Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of A.P.H.A. ADDITION was recorded in this office this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By: , Deputy REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of A.P.H.A. ADDITION was recorded in this office this _______ day of ____________________, 20___, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles By: , Deputy R.T. DOC. NO. 37 [B1]N00°39'11"E 187.99N87°10'19"E 632.62 S01°30'54"W34.79S88°06'58"E 98.89 S01°30'54"W6.282 5 7 .6 8 R =7 6 3 .9 4 Δ =1 9 °1 9 '3 5 " S87°10'19"W 286.91 S. LINE PARCEL 44 S. LINE PARCEL 44 E. LINE PARCEL 44SWly. LINE PARCEL 44 [B4] FOUND MNDOT MONUMENT W. LINE LOT 4, BLOCK 7 SHELARD PARK S. LINE LOT 1, BLOCK 7 30 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 4510515 32 FOOT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 4070550 10 FOOT ELECTRIC EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 3844615 315.25 317.37 W. LINE SE 14 NE 14 SEC. 1-117-22 (317.55 D)119.74S. LINE COT No. 1472181 S63°2 9' 4 9" W 1 9 7. 5 3 S87°13'05"W 139.72 N87°13'05"E 104.50 S78°09' 5 1 " E 2 1 4 . 2 0 (139.87 D)S00°43'24"W 198.98W. LINE COT No. 1472181 E. LINE COT No. 1472182 POB COT No. 1472181 POB COT No. 1472182 144.56S. LINE COT No. 1472182 SW COR. COT No. 1472182 N. LIN E P A R C E L 4 4 N. LINE PARCEL 44 Nly EXTENSION W. LINE LOT 4, BLOCK 7 SE COR. COT No. 1472181 S00°43'24"W15.43[B212]N00°39'11"E 484.26W. LINE MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 27-23 S78°13' 5 8 " E 2 1 4 . 2 8 N. LINE MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 27-23 N. LINE MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 27-23S78°13' 5 8 " E 9 3 . 0 0 9 3 .1 9 R =7 6 3 .9 4 Δ =6 °5 9 '2 0 " 7.37 Line 1 COT N o. 1 4 7 2 1 8 3 Line 1 COT No. 1472183 86.85Chd= N48°43'53" E Chd L=83.73 Chd= S49°33'29" W Chd L=215.62 Chd=S 6 7 ° 4 3' 3 2 " W Chd L = 2 5 6. 4 6 83.74R=2083.24 Δ=02°18'11"216.29R=788.53 Δ=15°42'58" 108.85 R=788.5 3 Δ=07°5 4 ' 3 3 " (Δ=07°4 3 ' 5 7 " D ) Wly. EXTENSION Sly. LINE PARCEL 44 Chd=N7 8 ° 4 8 ' 1 4 " W Chd L=1 0 8 . 7 6 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 4510515 LOT 1 BLOCK 1 [B5] [B3] FOUND JLM ALUMINUM CAP [B211] FOUND MNDOT MONUMENT [B2] FOUND MNDOT MONUMENT214.0015 FOOT DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT PER SHELARD PARK 5 FOOT UE 5 FOOT UE 5 FOOT UE 5 FOOT UE 5 FOOT RADIUS UE 5 FOOT UE 10 FOOT UE 10 FOOT UE 10 FOOT UE 10 FOOT UE10 FOOT UEN77°41' 3 6 " W 2 6 3 . 4 8 (UE)42.51 (UE)151.40 (UE) UE 10 FOOT UE SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS A.P.H.A. ADDITION A.P.H.A. ADDITION N SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 www.wsbeng.com C.R. DOC. NO. DENOTES 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 49003. DENOTES FOUND 5 8" IRON MONUMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. DENOTES FOUND MNDOT R/W MONUMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. DENOTES BEARING OR DISTANCE FROM DESCRIPTION. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE THE WEST LINE OF THE SE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SEC. 1, T. 117, R. 22, IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF N00°39'11"E. PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT [B200] (100.00 D) COT UE UTILITY EASEMENT DEFINED (UE): AN UNOBSTRUCTED EASEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL NECESSARY UNDERGROUND OR SURFACE PUBLIC UTILITIES INCLUDING RIGHTS TO CONDUCT DRAINAGE AND TRIMMING ON SAID EASEMENT. 38