HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/03/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 22, 2004
8:00 p.m
**6:30 – 8:00 p.m. – Board & Commission Recognition Event
**EDA Special Meeting to Immediately Follow
1. Call To Order
2 Request of Rottlund Homes (Quadion Corporation) for a preliminary PUD and
plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W 37th Street,
5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford Street
Case Nos. 03-73-PUD, 03-74-S Document
Rottlund Homes proposes to demolish the existing building at 3630 Wooddale
Avenue and to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units, and 80 senior
rental units.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve Resolution for a Preliminary PUD and Plat
for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W
37th Street, 5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920
Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford Street (this action essentially
approves the “Alternative 1” proposal with a provision that,
under certain circumstances the “Alternative 2” plan would be
the approved plan)
3. 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.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 1 of 39
2. Request of Rottlund Homes (Quadion Corporation) for a preliminary PUD and
plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W 37th Street,
5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford Street
Case Nos. 03-73-PUD, 03-74-S
Rottlund Homes proposes to demolish the existing building at 3630 Wooddale
Avenue and to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units, and 80 senior
rental units.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve Resolution for a Preliminary PUD and Plat
for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W
37th Street, 5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920
Oxford Street, 5926 Oxford Street (this action essentially
approves the “Alternative 1” proposal with a provision that,
under certain circumstances the “Alternative 2” plan would be
the approved plan)
Background:
In 2001 Quadion Corp. closed their manufacturing facility at 3630 Wooddale Avenue.
Quadion has found a new location outside of St. Louis Park, and intends to vacate the
three-story administrative office building at 5957 37th Street and the research facilities on
the east side of Wooddale Avenue. Quadion has entered into a purchase agreement with
Rottlund Homes to sell all of their property holdings in this location including two of four
residential properties on Oxford Street. On August 4, 2003, the City Council approved a
request to reguide the Quadion property from industrial to medium density residential and
office on the west side of Wooddale Avenue and to Commercial Mixed-Use and Park on
the east side of Wooddale Avenue. The Council also approved a rezoning as indicated on
the map below and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan adopting the Elmwood
Area Land Use, Transit, & Transportation Study concept plan and planning principles for
the Elmwood Area. A copy of the text amendment is attached. (The Study was
completed in January 2003 and formally accepted by the City Council on February 18,
2003.)
Rottlund Homes has now submitted an application for a preliminary PUD and plat and a
petition to vacate West 37th Street and the alley north of the single family homes on
Oxford Street. The application relates to property on the west side of Wooddale Avenue
only. The application actually involves two alternative plans: Alternative 1 includes all
four of the residential properties on the north side of Oxford Street (two of which
Quadion does not own) and Alternative 2 excludes these four residential properties. A
further description of the alternatives is given below.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 2 of 39
The developer has conducted a number of neighborhood meetings to review their plans
and architectural renderings and to answer questions regarding the proposal. Staff was
not invited to the meetings, but has received verbal reports that the neighborhood seemed
supportive of the plans, especially if the Oxford properties were included (Alternative 1).
On January 12, 2004, the City Council discussed the status at a Study Session and
indicated a preference for including the Oxford properties. The developer then submitted
an alternative (Alternative 1) to include them. The City Attorney indicated that an
application including the four properties could be advertised and considered by the
Planning Commission even though Rottlund did not have any ownership rights at the
time for two of the properties. The new application was properly advertised and notices
mailed to affected property owners. On February 4, 2004, the Planning Commission
discussed the process at a Study Session.
On February 18, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered
both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 plans. Several residents spoke and indicated to the
Planning Commission that they would be satisfied with either alternative, although there
was some preference for Alternative 1. The owner of one of the residential properties on
the north side of Oxford Street included in Alternative 1 also spoke and indicated a
willingness to sell the property. The applicant argued that if they could not work out a
deal with the residential property owners, a denial of Alternative 2 would not allow them
to close on the purchase agreement with Quadion.
The Planning Commission indicated a strong preference for Alternative 1 and
recommended approval of Alternative 1 with conditions listed in the staff report. In case
the ownership issues could not be worked out, the Planning Commission also
recommended approval of Alternative 2 directing staff to prepare conditions of approval
based upon discussions during the meeting. (Staff had recommended denial of
Alternative 2 and included proposed findings for denial rather than conditions for
approval.) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the street vacation and
alley vacation subject to approval of Alternative 1.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing, both residential property owners
on Oxford Street have granted consent for the Alternative 1 application. The City
Council can legally approve Alternative 1 at this time.
Current Zoning:
R4 – Multi-Family Residential
RC – Multi-Family Residential
All properties west of Wooddale, except existing
office building have been zoned R4.
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
S
OXFORD ST
36TH ST W
37TH ST WRC
MXR4
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 3 of 39
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: RM—Residential Medium Density
O—Office
Current Land Use Office, Vacant Manufacturing
Building, Parking Lot, Single
Family, 2-Family
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Proposed Land Use Office (21,250 sq.ft.) Office (21,250 sq.ft.)
Townhouse (78) Townhouse (64),
Condominiums (66) Condominiums (66)
Senior Rental (80)** Senior Rental (80)**
Proposed Total Residential 224 206
Units
Development Area 362,230 sq.ft. 324,101 sq.ft
(8.31 ac.) (7.44 Ac)
Proposed Density 30.5 units/acre* 31.1 units/acre*
Proposed Parking 429 spaces* 389 spaces*
Usable Open Space 50,575 sq. ft. 43,900 sq. ft.
Designed Outdoor About 10% About 7.5 to 8%
Recreation Area
Building Heights
Maximum Allowed: 40 feet 40 feet
Proposed:
Condominium* 4-story* 4-story*
Senior Housing* 4-story* 4-story*
*4-Story over at-grade parking level; PUD modifications requested
** Could be changed to condominiums without age restrictions
Proposal:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 4 of 39
The developer is proposing to retain the 3-story office building on Alabama Avenue and
to redevelop the remaining properties west of Wooddale Avenue with townhouses,
condos, and senior apartments. Two of the four properties (proposed to be included in
Alternative 1) are not owned by Quadion, and attempts to purchase these (a single-family
house and a duplex) have not been successful thus far. Therefore, Rottlund originally
submitted a proposal to develop around these (Alternative 2). Staff, the City Council,
and Elmwood Neighborhood representatives have all expressed a preference to include
the entire block within the development as envisioned by the Elmwood Study and
adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the area. Staff, the Planning
Commission, and the developer agree that the overall site plan is improved when the four
properties are included. Rottlund has submitted an alternative plan (Alternative 1) that
does include these four properties. Rottlund has also made substantial progress in
negotiations to purchase the two remaining properties. Therefore, the current owners
have consented to the applications to include them. Staff will discuss and analyze each
plan separately.
Alternative 1 (Including 4 Oxford properties)
The site layout shows townhouses on the southern third of the site oriented both toward
Oxford Street and a private interior drive. The existing three-story office building on
Alabama Avenue would remain. On the middle of the site along the Wooddale side is a
66-unit condominium building (4-story over at-grade parking garage) and there is an 80-
unit senior rental apartment building (4-story over at-grade parking garage) on the
northern portion adjacent to West 36th Street. If Sherman’s proposal is not financially
feasible, this could be changed to additional condominiums without age restrictions.
The applicant is proposing to vacate the portion of West 37th Street between Alabama and
Wooddale Avenue and also an alley abutting the four residential properties on the north
side of Oxford.
Site access would include two private streets, one serving the office and townhouses and
the other serving the office building, condominium building and the senior rental (or age
restricted condominium) building.
Usable open space is provided in a large area in the center of the site that would meet the
newly proposed “designed outdoor recreation area” standard and is discussed below.
(The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this open
space standard on November 19, 2003, and revisions on March 3, 2004. The City
Council approved first reading on March 15, 2004.) A required storm water retention
pond is located adjacent to Oxford Street across from the park.
The Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, & Transportation Study indicated a need for
additional right of way on Wooddale Avenue in order to expand it to a 4-lane divided
boulevard. Traffic studies are currently in process that will identify the new right of way
Wooddale Avenue cross section between Oxford Street and West 36th Street. The
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 5 of 39
consultant for the traffic study has provided a preliminary cross section that indicated the
need for at least 90 feet. The proposed preliminary plat does dedicate additional right-of-
way on the west side of Wooddale. In addition, a need for right of way has been
identified to accommodate a right turn lane into the proposed development on the
northern end. This will be discussed below.
Alternative 2 (Excluding 4 Oxford properties)
The major difference between this alternative and Alternative 1 occurs on the southwest
portion of the plan. This alternative does not include the four residential properties and
thus changes how the southern internal roadway is laid out. It both decreases the office
parking (which could be shared for residential guest parking) and the usable open space.
In this proposal, the alley would not be vacated since it is required to serve the existing
Oxford Street residential properties. The applicant is proposing to use the alley right of
way as part of the internal roadway system serving the office and townhouse buildings.
This alternative requires PUD modifications to parking, density, and building height and
would result in a discontinuous streetscape along Oxford Street, with sidewalks and street
trees terminating mid block. These issues are addressed below.
East side of Wooddale:
The Quadion properties located east of Wooddale Avenue have been reguided for Park
and Mixed-Use and will be redeveloped at a later date. They are not part of either
alternative. However, they would be impacted by a loss of parking on the west side of
Wooddale that has served them in the past (see issues analysis).
Alternative 1 Issues:
§ Does the proposal meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies?
§ Does the proposal meet zoning code requirements?
§ Does the proposal meet the requirements for a PUD?
§ Is the proposal consistent with the Elmwood Study Recommendations?
§ Does the proposal meet storm water retention requirements?
§ Does the proposal meet the new proposed requirements for “designed outdoor
recreation area?
§ Does the proposed preliminary plat meet the design standards of the subdivision
ordinance?
§ What are traffic implications for this development proposal?
§ Is there an existing or future need for West 37 Street and the alley north of the
Oxford Street properties that are proposed to be vacated?
§ What is the implication of developing only those properties on the west side of
Wooddale Avenue?
Alternative 1 Issue Analysis:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 6 of 39
§ Does the proposal meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies?
The Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 (adopted 5-17-99) recommended a study be
undertaken for the Elmwood area. This resulted in the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit,
and Transportation Study, that was completed in early 2003 and accepted by the City
Council on February 18, 2003. The City Council adopted text amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan that incorporated a concept plan and planning principles for the
Elmwood study area on August 4, 2003. The Study recommended redevelopment of the
entire area bounded by 36th Street, Wooddale, Oxford and Alabama with a mix of
attached housing densities and types.
In the meantime, Rottlund began negotiating with Quadion regarding a purchase of the
property and working with staff on a plan that meets the intent of the Elmwood Study.
The only substantive change was the concept of retaining the office building, which had
not seemed feasible during the Elmwood Study. This change was considered and
approved during subsequent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning changes. However, it is
only allowed to remain as is. It cannot be expanded or redeveloped as office. Any future
redevelopment would be to high density multi-family housing.
Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the Alternative 1 plan meets the land use
goals of the Elmwood Study as adopted into the Comprehensive Plan because there is
more open space, adequate parking, and good internal roadway design. Also, all of the
properties (other than the offices) are redeveloped in a cohesive manner as envisioned.
Other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan address site design. In particular, the
Livable Communities chapter contain goals and policies related to building placement
and the relationship of buildings to a “walkable public realm” and providing convenient
pedestrian connections for residents to transit and other commercial development. Staff
does not believe that the Alternative 1 plan in its current configuration meets these
requirements. The issues related to this will be discussed below in relation to building
height for the condominium and senior housing buildings.
§ Does the proposal meet zoning code requirements?
The proposal for new townhouse, condominium, and senior rental units is permitted by
conditional use permit in the R4—Multi-family Residential zoning district at densities of
up to 30 units per acre. The existing office building is a permitted use in the RC—Multi-
Family Residential District. The applicant has submitted an application for a PUD for the
site. The PUD generally allows the entire site to be reviewed as if it were a single parcel
for determining density, parking, and usable open space. The PUD process allows for
certain modifications to district standards. The applicant is seeking modifications to
parking, density, and building height. The PUD also allows for shared driveway access,
and reduced internal and external setbacks. Staff considers the proposal a good candidate
for the PUD process.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 7 of 39
The zoning code lists the following conditions for each proposed land use:
Multiple-family dwelling
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a
collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be
provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
Access is proposed from Wooddale Avenue and Alabama Avenue. Wooddale
Avenue is designated as a minor arterial and Alabama Avenue is designated as a
collector.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit and no more than one-half can be located in the
front yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land
or cash in lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter may reduce this requirement on a one-for-
one basis to a minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit.
The Alternative 1 plan has 1.16 acres of usable open space according to
calculations submitted by the applicant. This may be slightly overstated as part of
the calculation appears to include private stoops. This number translates into 225
square feet per dwelling unit. There is a requirement for park and trail dedication
as a condition of the proposed subdivision. See analysis of the subdivision
requirements below.
The Planning Commission recently recommended approval and Council approved
first reading of a proposal that would eliminate the definition “usable open space”
and replace it with “designed outdoor recreation area”. Since a PUD states that a
project must meet a higher standard of site design than would be approved under a
normal CUP, and provide more usable and suitable open space, staff has analyzed
the site plan using the “designed outdoor recreation area” standard. See the
discussion about “Designed Outdoor Recreation Area” below.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of
the buildings.
The applicant is proposing that both the condominium building and senior rental
building exceed the maximum building height of 40 feet allowed in the R4 zoning
district. This was not known at the time of Planning Commission review, so it
was not part of the public hearing discussion or Planning Commission
recommendation. The applicant has not submitted building elevations or
informed staff of the exact proposed height. The PUD process allows height
modifications in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. This could be
integrated to allow a deviation from this requirement as well if deemed in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, since it was not analyzed
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 8 of 39
as part of the public hearing process, staff recommends that any proposal to
modify the height and spacing requirements be reviewed during a public hearing
at Final PUD consideration.
d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
This requirement is met.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system,
it must meet minimum public street width requirements of this chapter to
allow on-street parking.
The proposed private internal roadways are shown to be 28 feet wide with parking
on one side. The subdivision code requires 29 feet, therefore a Subdivision
Ordinance variance will be required. Public Works and Fire Department staff
have reviewed this and are recommending approval. Planning staff also believes
the narrower streets enhance traffic calming. Therefore, staff and the Planning
Commission recommend running a variance with the final plat.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all
sides of the lot that abut a public street. Sidewalks shall also be provided
between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances.
The site plan shows sidewalks along West 36th Street, Alabama Avenue, Oxford
Street and a trail along Wooddale Avenue. In addition, internal sidewalks are
being provided that connect the public street and internal parking areas with
building entrances. There is more discussion under the subdivision section
below.
Other Zoning Code Requirements:
Unless zoning code modifications are granted via the PUD process, the proposal must
comply with all provisions of the zoning code. In addition to the specific requirements
for a multi-family residential use listed above, other requirements include but are not
limited to landscaping and bufferyards, tree replacement, maximum building height,
maximum floor area ratios, parking standards, architectural standards, setbacks,
maximum density, etc. Tree replacement and landscaping standards are discussed under
subdivision requirements below. The preliminary PUD application does not require
building elevations, so information regarding building materials cannot be addressed until
final PUD.
It has come to staff’s attention since the Planning Commission meeting that the developer
is also requesting modifications to the maximum building height requirement of 40 feet
for the senior rental building and the condominium building. The applicant has stated
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 9 of 39
that the actual architecture has not been developed, but that the building heights would be
near 50 feet (average height taken from all sides). This has resulted from a decision in
the grading plan to send all of the stormwater to the pond in the southeast corner of the
site. In order to do that, the parking below the apartments and condominiums was raised
from below ground to at-grade. This could potentially be avoided by adding a pond or by
using an underground storage tank to store water from the northern part of the site. The
zoning code does allow modifications to building heights via the PUD process, but only
if in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. There is currently no language in the
Comprehensive Plan specific to building height although it does say density would
increase on the north side. Heights of 3-4 stories were discussed during the
Comprehensive Plan approvals and PUD public hearing. Therefore, staff recommends
reducing the height or holding another public hearing at Final PUD to discuss this
proposal. Also see discussion below under PUD below.
§ Does the proposal meet the requirements for a PUD?
As stated above, staff feels that this project is a good candidate for a PUD. The applicant
is seeking certain modifications to code requirements, and by using the PUD process,
greater flexibility can be used and the total development can be considered as one parcel
for the purpose of open space, overall density, etc. The City Council may also impose
additional requirements, above those ordinarily required by the zoning code, if “…. in the
opinion of the city council, such additional requirements are necessary to protect the
general welfare, public safety, neighborhood character and/or to achieve the objectives
contained in section 36-1.” Generally, the PUD process requires that certain findings are
met to justify approval of a PUD and/or PUD modifications. For instance, the City
Council must find that the requested modifications “bear a demonstrable relationship to,
and are consistent with, the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan” and the
applicant can show that the effect of the modification “will be eliminated by screening
landscaping, superior site and building design and other features related to planning,
design and construction.”
Purpose of PUD. The applicant is seeking to develop the site using the PUD process as a
means to allow the flexibility to consider the parcels together for access, parking, and
overall residential density. The code states that a PUD is appropriate if the “process will
benefit the city and its residents…” and it gives general guidelines for making that
determination. The overall purposes of the PUD as listed in the code include the
following:
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction,
and land development.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to
support high-quality development at a lesser cost.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 10 of 39
(4) Provision of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made
more usable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be
provided under conventional development procedures.
(5) A flexible approach to development is permitted by allowing certain
limited modifications to the strict application of regulations of the use
districts that are in harmony with the goals, purpose and intent of the city's
comprehensive plan and this chapter.
(6) A more creative and efficient use of land is encouraged.
(7) The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics,
including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and
access is fostered.
(8) Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan
in certain areas of the city and to ensure the redevelopment goals and
objectives will be achieved.
(9) Flexibility in the design and construction is allowed for development in
cases where large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and
have the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
PUD Findings. Certain findings must be made relative to PUD approvals that address the
superior quality of a proposal. These are listed below.
• Building and site design. The city council shall find that the quality of building
and site design proposed by the PUD plan will substantially enhance aesthetics of
the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the comprehensive plan
before a PUD plan may be approved.
Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed site plan layout is
well thought out, functions well, and implements goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of internal circulation, both vehicle and pedestrian,
and that the size and location of the open space is central to the development and
is accessible through an internal sidewalk system. The location of the buildings
relative to the surrounding streets has potential to provide for a desirable
streetscape and an asset for the future project residents and larger neighborhood.
However, this potential has been relatively impacted by the change to at-grade
parking structures, which may not be aesthetic and eliminates at-grade access
from the streetscape to the residential buildings. The proposed project is a
significant improvement to the current vacant building and parking lot.
As noted, there are still issues related to grading and building elevations that are
not consistent with goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Chapter R, Livable Communities Goal E states “Facilitate building locations
and design which emphasizes a relationship with a walkable public realm.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 11 of 39
Support design which emphasis architecture, art, and pedestrian and transit
connections.”
The proposed grading plan indicates that the garage elevation for the
condominium building is at street level along Wooddale Avenue with first
floor elevations 10 feet above that. If the proposed garage level is
windowless with typical split face block construction, it will not present a
“relationship with a walkable public realm.” This relationship of garage floor
to finished grade level also contributes to excessive building height (the
appearance of 5 stories, not 4 stories on the Wooddale Avenue elevation) and
eliminates a direct relationship with the walkable public realm. Staff proposes
that the developer lower the garage level about 6 feet or so that the first floor
is no more than 4 feet above the curb level at Wooddale. (Berms are not
recommended in this location, since these do not meet the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to relate buildings to a walkable public realm.) If this
proves infeasible due to costs to rectify the drainage issues, staff recommends
at the least that building materials used on the garage elevation be of class 1
materials and include windows to match those on the first floor elevation (or
other treatments if found to be effective). Staff further recommends a public
hearing at Final PUD to consider the height modifications and aesthetics of
the proposal.
The proposed first floor elevation for the senior rental building is 6 feet above
the adjacent sidewalk on West 36th Street. This will result in difficulty
providing an entrance along West 36th Street for resident use to access transit
and other businesses on West 36th Street. Access in this location would
require fewer stairs (for mobility impaired seniors) and a more convenient
ADA ramp if the first floor was lowered two to three feet. As noted, staff
recommends a public hearing at Final PUD to further consider this proposal if
it is not rectified prior to that time.
• The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified
environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of
all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically
pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities.
The site plan for Alternative 1 shows an internal coherence, interconnected
sidewalks and central open space accessible to all residents. Staff finds that the
site plan meets the standards for the PUD with the following exception:
The applicant is proposing to construct a triangular shaped stormwater pond along
southern edge of the property across from the park. The proposed pond design
utilizes six-foot high retaining walls along two edges that total about 280 feet in
length. This design is less aesthetic and potentially less safe than a more natural
pond design. Unless the pond is lined, it would be a dry pond, which staff, the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 12 of 39
Planning Commission and the developer agree would not be an aesthetic solution
for either the neighborhood or the future residents. Therefore, at a minimum, staff
and the Planning Commission recommend lining it and keeping it wet. A more
natural design would require a larger pond area and a reduction in the number of
proposed townhouse units. Also see the discussion below where the pond is
discussed under a separate heading.
The City has not received building elevations since these are not a requirement of
the preliminary PUD. The project will be required to meet the zoning code
standards for exterior building materials, screening of utility structures and
rooftop equipment, and other requirements of the architectural and PUD sections
of the zoning code. The condominium building could be enhanced in appearance
by utilizing private exterior entrances for the first floor units that face east and
south. These issues will be reviewed in depth during final PUD consideration to
ensure the higher standard of building design required by PUD. (A modification
to building height is being sought, however, the applicant has not supplied a
building elevation and the exact modification is unknown at this time.)
The design of a PUD shall achieve the maximum compatibility of the project with
surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the
potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential
adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD.
Also see above for comments related to site plan. Within close proximity to this
development is a future transit station and light rail corridor, a future mixed-use
streetscape along W. 36th Street, existing regional and city trails that connect the
area with Wolfe Park, and the park system in Minneapolis. The internal focus of
the senior rental building and condominium building and the proposed first floor
elevations relative to the adjacent public streets do not connect well to the
surrounding community or allow easy accessibility to surounding pedestrian
amenities. Staff recommends that the preliminary site and grading plans be
amended prior to final plat to show how this development connects with the larger
area around it and meets with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This could
be addressed by providing a lobby entrance to the senior rental building that is
accessible from West 36th Street. Also, ground floor units of the condominium
buildings could have exterior private entrances from Wooddale Avenue and to the
south as being done with Excelsior & Grand. Again, this would require lowering
the buildings and changes to stormwater design.
The proposed pond design may adversely visually impact the neighborhood to the
south. As noted, the impacts of potentially rectifying this would require a larger
pond area and the loss of some townhouse units or underground tank storage, (or
other potential solutions). Staff has not received any information related to these
alternatives, since financial assistance may be necessary. There is also concern
that the wall could be a target for graffiti.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 13 of 39
The design shall take into account any modifications of chapter requirements
permitted by subsection (d) of this section and provide appropriate solutions to
eliminate the adverse impacts of any modification required for approval of the
PUD.
The applicant is seeking to increase the allowable density, decrease the parking,
and increase allowable building height.
• Density modification. A 10% density increase may be approved through
PUD provided certain conditions are met. The applicant is seeking about
a 2% increase. One result of this proposed density is the restricted size of
the proposed stormwater pond. As stated above, if the pond was enlarged,
and the number of units reduced, there would be a financial impact to the
project. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2%
increase, but also suggested looking at ponding alternatives. Staff is
recommending that the design of the pond and adjacent retaining walls be
enhanced to improve its aesthetics.
• Parking modification. A 15% reduction in parking may also be approved
provided the conditions are met. The applicant is proposing guest parking
on the internal private streets as well as utilizing on-street parking
opportunities on Oxford Street. Staff believes that parking will be
adequate. The applicant is not seeking the full 15% reduction and shared
parking with the office building is potentially an available option
(provided easements are provided). Since the higher density is proposed
on the northern portion of the site, and the residents have accessibility to
transit, staff believes that this modification will not adversely impact the
adjacent single family neighborhood. All of the residential units will
have direct vehicle access to Wooddale Avenue and staff believes this will
be the preferred route.
• Building height modification. The maximum building height for the R4
zoning district is 40 feet. Since the applicant is proposing 4-story
buildings over at-grade parking garages, modifications would be required.
The applicant described the parking as underground on the plans. The
PUD allows modifications to building heights if consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
these properties is RM – Medium Density Residential. This designation
accommodates R3 and R4 zoning, with R4 being the most dense.
The description of the project included in the application indicated a
proposal for 4-story buildings. The application did not include a specific
request for a building height modification and the Planning Commission
did not consider a building height modification as part of the public
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 14 of 39
hearing process. When considering a typical rule of thumb of 10 feet per
story, a building height modification (from the 40-foot requirement) would
not necessarily be required for a flat-roofed building, or at least it could be
limited to less than 5 feet. (In this case, building heights would be
measured along the side or sides of the buildings adjacent Wooddale
Avenue and West 36th Street.) In order to process this application, staff
would recommend that the City Council grant a 5-foot building height
modification subject to aesthetic criteria for the pedestrian level of the
buildings and if a larger modification is requested with the Final PUD, the
Planning Commission hold a public hearing to address the request.
If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction
over a period of time or in two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall
demonstrate that each phase is capable of addressing and meeting these criteria
independent of the other phases.
The project is not proposed to be phased.
Modifications. The applicant for a PUD seeking modifications as permitted in table 36-
367A is required to demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support, and further the
following objectives:
a. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project;
Except for the pedestrian connections from the senior building to
Wooddale Avenue, staff believes the proposed pedestrian facilities meet
this criterion.
b. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities;
The project is located in close proximity to a future transit station for light
rail. Pedestrian connections to this facility need enhancement, especially
from the senior building. This enhancement would also provide access to
the existing bus service at Wooddale and West 36th Street.
c. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing;
The applicant, via a separate developer, may be seeking 20% affordable
units for the senior rental project. If financial assistance is not obtained,
this may be converted to condominiums, which may not be age restricted
or affordable.
d. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as
part of the PUD plan;
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 15 of 39
NA. However, live-work opportunities would result since the existing
office building is proposed to remain.
e. Provide public plazas and usable open space which exceeds minimum
chapter requirements; and
The proposed open space exceeds slightly reductions allowed for park
dedication.
f. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of
public art.
No public art is being proposed. There may be an opportunity for public
art on the proposed retaining wall. The proposed six-foot high structure
could accommodate art if constructed of proper materials.
§ Is the proposal consistent with the Elmwood Study Recommendations?
The Elmwood Study land use recommendations and development guidelines are attached.
The Study recommends residential land uses for the Quadion property west of Wooddale
and mixed use and park for properties east of Wooddale Avenue. The City Council
passed a resolution accepting the Elmwood Study on March 3, 2003. The resolution
responded to the Elmwood Neighborhood concerns about increased traffic in the
neighborhood that could result from high-density development. A traffic study has
indicated that the proposed Alternative 1 would not increase peak hour traffic beyond that
of the manufacturing facility that is being replaced.
The Elmwood Study also recommends planning principles to address neighborhood
concerns related to new development west of Wooddale Avenue. A copy of the planning
principles is attached.
West Side of Wooddale
The study recommendation for the Quadion property was for residential land uses on the
west side of Wooddale Avenue with potential first floor retail/service on the north end.
The residential guidelines indicated that the residential densities should transition from
low medium townhouses on the south end to high density on the north end, across the
street from the proposed transit station. The study did not anticipate ultimately
retaining any existing buildings or land uses on the Quadion property. However, that
recommendation was based on Quadion’s indication that they were no longer interested
in using the office building and anticipated a total residential redevelopment west of
Wooddale. Also, the study is long range in its vision, and much of the anticipated
redevelopment is not anticipated for another 20 or more years. It is possible that the
office building property will redevelop as residential at some future time. This was
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 16 of 39
addressed via the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning adoptions, since a public hearing and
Council action are required for any redevelopment project.
East Side of Wooddale
No redevelopment is proposed at this time. However, since parking for the office
buildings on the east side of Wooddale currently occurs on the surface parking lots and
37th Street right of way on the west side of Wooddale, the developer will be required to
address the parking issue for properties on the east side of Wooddale before occupancy
permits can be issued. See below.
§ Does the proposal meet storm water retention requirements?
The grading and utility plans have been reviewed by the City’s consulting engineer who
has indicated that the designed pond will be “adequate to mitigate adverse impacts
associated with the development and slightly improve drainage conditions downstream,
but will not eliminate all current flooding that exists in the area.” (The City’s utility
station will continue to be subject to flooding in large storm events.) Public Works has
determined that this is acceptable. There are other minor adjustments necessary to the
plan relative to outlet details, requiring lift stations at garage entrances, additional storm
sewers, etc. The project engineer has received a copy of these comments and staff
recommends the changes be made prior final plat. Also, no detail has been provided that
indicates the pond will be lined to retain water even though the applicant has agreed to do
so. This will be included as a condition of approval.
As discussed above, even if the proposed pond does meet the technical requirements, the
pond design still includes a six-foot high retaining wall along two sides of the pond
(totaling 280 feet in length). Staff feels that the height and length of these walls do not
achieve the high aesthetic level of site design that is assumed for a PUD. The applicant
has provided cross-sections and a simple perspective to show the impact of the walls.
This was a condition of Planning Commission recommendation of approval. The
applicant has stated that landscape materials will be planted at the base of the wall in
order to mitigate its impact. The applicant has also indicated that a fence will be placed
above the wall for its entire length as a safety precaution.
The proposal will also require a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit.
§ Does the proposal meet the new proposed requirements for “designed outdoor
recreation area?
The proposed standard for “designed outdoor recreation area” or “DORA” is 12% of the
land area of the PUD with allowable reductions by PUD. The definition is as follows:
“Designed Outdoor Recreational Area means designed outdoor space intended for
passive or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 17 of 39
employees. The area shall be functional and aesthetic, designed with clear edges,
relate to the principal building or buildings, include sidewalk connections, seating,
landscaping, and other amenities. The area should be compatible with or enlarge
upon existing pedestrian links and public parks or open space and may include
swimming pools, tot lots, courtyards, plazas, picnic areas, and trails within natural
areas. Outdoor recreational areas shall not include driveways, parking areas, steep
slopes, or ponds designed solely for stormwater retention.”
The proposal indicates that Alternative 1 has 50,575 square feet or 1.16 acres of usable
open space. Not all of this area would be considered as “DORA”, because some of the
area is just space between buildings that is not planned for access and use of all of the
residents of the development. Staff estimates that about 10% of the project area is in
open space that could be considered. The requirement is 12% of the land with allowable
reductions via the PUD process. The proposed project will be required to provide cash in
lieu of park dedication, which is one of the proposed criteria for allowing a reduction via
the PUD process. So the new DORA area standard would be met. There are further
requirements for design of the DORA area. The preliminary PUD does not offer any
detail to the open space area other than to show the location of sidewalks, a central
gazebo and scattered trees. A more detailed plan for this area will be required for the
final PUD.
• Does the proposed preliminary plat meet the design standards of the subdivision
ordinance?
Lots: The proposal shows 8 lots, 1 for each building plus a common lot for the
townhouse portion of the development. (Condo plats would be approved
administratively.) The subdivision requires the vacation of W. 37th Street and the
alley. Most of the proposed open space is located on the condominium lot. The
stormwater pond is proposed to be located on the common townhouse lot. Since
utilitarian functions, such as the pond and private streets and sidewalks, access to
open space, and office parking (evenings/weekends) needs to be shared by the
entire development, the developer must provide all of the cross easements and
condominium documents prior to final PUD and plat consideration by the
Planning Commission.
Streets: The developer is proposing two private streets that cross the site east to
west connecting from Alabama to Wooddale. The northern street has right in,
right out access at Wooddale only because of its close proximity to the
intersection of Wooddale and W. 36th Street. The design of the “pork chop” that
restricts this access to right in, right out has not been approved by Public Works
and is recommended to be redesigned. Future plans for Wooddale that would
redesign it with a center median will eventually eliminate the need for the “pork
chop”. The preliminary plat does show additional right of way is being dedicated
in order to accommodate the redesigned Wooddale. The right turn lane shown on
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 18 of 39
the plan to access the northern entrance will require additional right of way, since
a trail also needs to be accommodated along the total length of Wooddale Avenue
(see below). The applicant is showing an additional trail easement in this
location, but since the additional turn lane is a requirement for allowing access at
this location, additional right of way is required and needs to be shown on the
preliminary plat.
The proposed internal private streets are 28 feet wide and have parking on one
side. The subdivision ordinance requires a minimum of a 29-foot roadway
section where parking is located on one side. The private streets will also require
5-foot sidewalks and a 6-foot boulevard. Public Works and the Fire Department
do not object to the 28-foot proposal, but it will require a variance from the
Subdivision Code and staff and the Planning Commission recommend that this
variance be included as part of the final PUD and plat application.
Sidewalks and Trails: In addition to the sidewalks required along the internal
private streets, sidewalks with 6-foot boulevards will also be required around the
periphery of the development. The sidewalks along Alabama and W 36 Street
(collector streets) are required to be 6 feet in width and the sidewalk along Oxford
Street (local street) is required to be 5 feet in width. Different sidewalks widths
are required according to the type of roadway designation. The existing and
proposed sidewalks along Alabama and West 36th Street appear to be partially on
private property. It will be a requirement that easements be granted to the City
over all of the sidewalks that abut public streets.
The Comprehensive Trail and Sidewalk Plan indicates a sidewalk along the west
side of Wooddale Avenue. However, the recommendations of the Elmwood Area
Land Use, Transportation, and Transit Study indicate that a trail is more
appropriate in that location. The proposed site plan does show an 8-foot trail.
Erosion Control: The developer will be required to obtain an erosion control
permit from the City prior to any site work. The erosion control plan submitted
does not fully address the requirements of the permit or of the code. For instance,
it does not locate an erosion control fence on the north end. A more detailed plan
will be required with the application of the erosion control permit.
Tree Removal: The developer has submitted a tree removal plan that indicates
that 1,094 caliper inches of trees need to be replaced. Tree replacement is
required based upon a formula which compares total caliper inches of existing
trees with the total number proposed to be removed for private property and on a
caliper inch for caliper inch for public trees. The preliminary landscape plan
indicates that only about 552.5 caliper inches of trees are being replaced. (This
amount could be increased to 720.5 by increasing the size of the 84 understory
trees from 1.5 caliper inches to 2.0 caliper inches.) If the developer is not able to
replace all required replacement trees on site due to space limitations, then the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 19 of 39
developer may elect to either pay the City a cash in lieu of tree removal in the
amount of $90 per caliper inch or plant the remaining trees within parks or
boulevards in locations identified by the City. The Environmental Coordinator
has recommended that elms that are to be saved be treated to prevent them drom
Dutch Elm disease. This should be incorporated into the association documents
and has been addressed as a condition of approval.
Landscaping: The subdivision ordinance requires that landscaping be provided
in accordance with requirements of the zoning code. It also requires boulevard
trees to be planted between the sidewalk or trail and street (whether public or
private). The landscaping and bufferyard requirements do not appear to be fully
met in the revised landscape plan that was submitted subsequent to the Planning
Commission public hearing for the preliminary plat and PUD on February 18.
The project will require a bufferyard C along Oxford Street, Alabama Avenue S.
and W. 36th Street. A bufferyard D is required along Wooddale Avenue. There
are some inconsistencies between the tree removal plan and revised landscape
plans relative to existing boulevard trees along Wooddale. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend that a revised landscape plan be submitted that meets all
of the bufferyard and boulevard tree requirements prior the final PUD and plat
consideration at the Planning Commission.
Easements: The subdivision ordinance requires utility and drainage easements at
least 10 feet in total width along all lot lines. Easements are also required over
ponding areas. The proposed preliminary plat does show required utility and
drainage easements. The preliminary plat also indicates an area where a proposed
trail is located on private property and indicates an easement in this location.
Since it is the right turn lane that requires a jog to the trail location, staff is
proposing additional right of way be dedicated on the plat. The plans also
indicate areas where the public sidewalk along Alabama and West 36th Street
appear to be on private property. Easements will be required over all public
sidewalks.
Stormwater: The subdivision ordinance requires that issues related to storm
water are resolved as a condition of preliminary plat approval. This issue is
addressed under a separate bulleted topic.
Park Dedication: For all subdivisions, park dedication is a requirement of the
platting process. The code requires for developments of over 10 units per acre,
that 20% of the land area, minus private roadways, be dedicated for parks. The
ordinance also states that the Park and Recreation Commission could recommend
cash in lieu of park and trail dedication at the rate of $900 per dwelling unit for
park dedication and $225 per dwelling unit for trail dedication. In this case the
Park and Recreation Commission met in January and recommended that the
developer pay cash in lieu of a land dedication. Staff and the Planning
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 20 of 39
Commission recommend that the park and trail dedication fee be paid to the City
prior to signing the final plat.
Development Agreement: The subdivision ordinance requires that the developer
and City enter into a development agreement prior to any work commencing on
the site. Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that this be made a
condition of approval of the preliminary plat.
§ What are traffic implications for this change in land use?
Currently the City and Park Nicollet are engaged in a traffic study that examines future
planned expansions of Park Nicollet and Methodist Hospital as well as additional
development east of TH 100 and the land use recommendations for the Elmwood area.
This traffic study is currently in process and the final document is not expected until later
this year. Preliminary traffic information and the Elmwood Study indicate a need to
expand the Wooddale Avenue right-of-way to accommodate adequate traffic lanes, a
recommended center median, boulevards, sidewalks, and trail. The proposed subdivision
dedicates additional right of way along Wooddale Avenue. The developer will also be
required to provide an easement for additional right of way on the east side for a total
right of way width of 90 feet, which accommodates a preliminary cross section that has
been provided by the consultant. Until the final analysis is completed by the consultant,
the overall actual required right of way width between Oxford Street and West 36th Street
is unknown. (The City is requiring additional right of way along the northern end on the
west side to accommodate a right turn lane for the development.)
Other findings of the traffic study indicate that the proposed redevelopment will have less
impact on peak hour traffic than the manufacturing use. This is because the trip
generation for residential uses is spread over a longer period of time.
Other traffic considerations
The proposal shows a two way private street between Wooddale Avenue and Alabama
Avenue that serves the townhouse portion of the project. There is concern that this
private street will be used by the neighborhood residents as a substitute for Oxford Street
(which is currently a one-way) for more convenient access into their neighborhood from
Wooddale Avenue. This concern could be overcome if Oxford became a two-way street.
The fire department, police department and utilities have all recommended that Oxford be
returned to a two-way street.
§ Is there an existing or future need for West 37 Street and the alley north of the
Oxford Street properties that are proposed to be vacated?
West 37th Street.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 21 of 39
• Neighborhood and project access. Currently, West 37th Street between Alabama
Avenue and Wooddale Avenue provides access to the Elmwood Neighborhood from
Wooddale. A more convenient access location is at Oxford Street, that is currently a
one-way. The developer is proposing to construct two private east-west private
streets that connect between Alabama and Wooddale to provide access to the project
residents. There is some concern that these will be used by neighborhood residents
for a cut-through route, and it is recommended by staff that Oxford Street be made a
two-way street in the future to eliminate this concern.
• Utilities. A six-inch water main is the only city utility within the street right of way.
This water main is proposed to be abandoned and removed. The project water
services will be from Wooddale and Oxford Street. (A new water main is proposed
in West 36th Street to serve and improve water pressure for the entire area, including
redevelopment projects, with construction scheduled in 2005.)
• Parking. The right of way was previously modified to provide parking for the
Quadion facilities both east and west of Wooddale. Since the manufacturing plant
closed several years ago, the parking is primarily utilized now by the Quadion
properties east of Wooddale Avenue. The vacation of this street will result in a loss
of parking for the Quadion property and staff and the Planning Commission are
proposing as a condition of approval that properties on the east side not be allowed to
be reoccupied until adequate parking is provided elsewhere.
Alley.
• Residential access. The alley currently serves as access for the four single
family properties and the office building. The proposed private road will
duplicate the alley function providing access to both new and existing
buildings.
• Utility access. Excel Energy has informed staff that they have power poles in
the alley that currently serves the residents and office building. Other
arrangements for underground power supply will need to be provided by the
developer to the new and existing buildings on the site. Staff recommends
that no existing or future need of the alley exists under Alternative 1.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacations. The City Council is
required to hold the public hearing for the vacation and it will be scheduled concurrently
with the final plat. Approval of the preliminary plat will be contingent upon approval of
the vacation.
§ What is the implication of developing only those properties on the west side of
Wooddale Avenue?
Parking:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 22 of 39
Quadion Corp. owned several parcels, both east and west of Wooddale Avenue. Except
for two single family properties and office space on 36th Street that was leased to others,
the remaining property was used by Quadion for their operations. Parking for properties
on the east side of Wooddale was accommodated on surface parking lots on the west side
as well as within the 37th Street right of way and in the municipal lot north of 36th Street.
Rottlund has a purchase agreement for all of the Quadion property, both east and west of
Wooddale. Rottlund is interested in waiting to redevelop properties on the east side until
the proposed development for the west side is underway and there is more interest in a
redevelopment project on the east side. (Currently, property on the east side is zoned for
mixed-use.)
When the proposed project is constructed, parking will be lost to those building on the
east side except for what is available in the municipal lot. Therefore, staff is proposing as
a condition of PUD approval that the buildings on the east side cannot be reoccupied after
Quadion vacates unless adequate parking can be provided. It is staff’s understanding that
Rottlund intends to demolish one of the buildings to make room for parking for the other.
In the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit & Transportation Study it is recommended that
the southeast corner of Wooddale and W. 36th Street and across from the future transit
station be guided “Public / Institutional”. The thought was that given traffic at this busy
intersection, this corner should have a low impact use so as not to impede traffic site lines
particularly westbound 36th to southbound Wooddale Ave. Therefore, a logical low
impact use for this property was a “pocket park or plaza”. In light of this recommended
land use, it would be logical for the City, through its EDA, to consider acquiring one or
both of these properties. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City ask the EDA to
further determine whether the acquisition of 5810 37th St. W. and 3601 Wooddale Ave. is
in the public interest and, if so, that the developer negotiate in good faith on the sale of
these properties to the EDA.
Right-of-way.
The traffic consultant who has been examining right of way needs in the area has stated
that a preliminary finding shows there is a need for a 90-foot right of way for Wooddale
Avenue between Oxford Street and West 36th Street. The proposed preliminary plat
shows a portion of this being dedicated on the west side. However, additional land is also
needed on the east side that will total the 90 feet. Staff recommends that as a condition of
approval of the preliminary PUD, that an easement be provided for the needed right of
way (12 feet) on the east side on property that the developer will own.
Alternative 2 Issues:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 23 of 39
§ Does the proposal meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies?
§ Does the proposal meet zoning code requirements?
§ Does the proposal meet the requirements for a PUD?
§ Is the proposal consistent with the Elmwood Study Recommendations?
§ Does the proposal meet storm water retention requirements?
§ Does the proposal meet the new proposed requirements for “designed outdoor
recreation area?
§ Does the proposed preliminary plat meet the design standards of the subdivision
ordinance?
§ What are traffic implications for this development proposal?
§ Is there an existing or future need for West 37 Street and the alley north of the
Oxford Street properties that are proposed to be vacated?
§ What is the implication of developing only those properties on the west side of
Wooddale Avenue?
§ What are the implications of approving Alternative 2?
Alternative 2 Issue Analysis:
• Does the proposal meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies?
The City Council accepted the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and Transportation
Study and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan the concept plan and design
principles of the Study. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the four single family
properties are part of the area and should be redeveloped as part of the Quadion property
redevelopment. These four properties were reguided from Industrial to Medium Density
Residential and rezoned to R4 to make redevelopment possible. The concept plan
submitted as an exhibit for the rezoning process indicated that the properties would be
included in a redevelopment plan. The applicant has indicated that the Elmwood Study is
a long range study and even if it was not included in their plan, these properties could
ultimately be redeveloped by others. The Planning Commission indicated a strong
preference for including the properties, but found the alternative acceptable if they could
not be included at this time. It appears unlikely from an economic feasibility point of
view that the properties would be redeveloped in the near future to bring them into
conformance. Also the plan would not have the advantages of increased parking, open
space and cohesive design that can be realized by including them at the onset. Rottlund
has indicated that even with efficiencies of scale of doing all the properties at once, there
is less profit in including the four properties. However, they agree it results in a superior
design and are therefore willing to pursue doing so. Future prospective redevelopers
would not have the benefit of the efficiencies of scale, so the economics would be worse.
A future redevelopment would not relocate a roadway, enlarge the proposed open space,
or provide additional parking and these are considered superior in Alternative 1.
§ Does the proposal meet zoning code requirements?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 24 of 39
The analysis for this heading is similar to Alternative 1, except that for usable open
space, this project is proposing 43,900 square feet total or 213 square feet per unit. This
ratio is lower than that proposed for Alternative 1, and may be inflated as it appears to
include private residential stoops. But, it still falls within the minimum requirement of
the zoning code because the project will be required to dedicate cash in lieu of land to
meet a park and trail dedication requirement of the subdivision. Since there are
differences in total units, there is also less parking provided. The parking reductions
sought are marginally higher in this plan than those in Alternative 1.
§ Does the proposal meet the requirements for a PUD?
This proposal requests a higher density, lower open space ratio, and greater parking
reduction than Alternative 1. In addition, it has a less desirable internal circulation plan
resulting in substantial townhouse and office traffic behind the remaining single and two-
family homes as well as potential cut-through neighborhood traffic. Even though the
Planning Commission recommended approval of this plan, they found this Alternative
less desirable than Alternative 1.
§ Is the proposal consistent with the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and
Transportation Study Recommendations?
The Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, and Transportation Study recommended a
redevelopment of all of the property north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue.
The concept plan and design principles indicate a redevelopment of the four single family
properties into townhouses. This proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of
the Elmwood study. The applicant argued at the Planning Commission public hearing
that even though Alternative 2 is not consistent with the Elmwood Study, the long range
scope of the Study did not rule out a future redevelopment of those properties. The
Planning Commission concurred with this. If these properties are not redeveloped within
the same time frame, many of the superior features of Alternative 1 will never be
realized. In addition, the uniform streetscape along Oxford Street offered by Alternative
1 would not be achieved. The applicant has indicated a willingness to continue the
sidewalk around the entire block even if they do not redevelop the four properties as a
way to mitigate this inconsistency. Staff has included this as a conditional of approval in
the event Alternative 1 cannot be accomplished and Alternative 2 is accepted.
§ Does the proposal meet storm water retention requirements?
See analysis for this section under Alternative 1.
§ Does the proposal meet the new proposed requirements for “designed outdoor
recreation area?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 25 of 39
The proposed standard for “designed outdoor recreation area” or “DORA” is 12% of the
land area of the PUD with allowable reductions by PUD. The definition was stated
above.
The Alternative 2 proposal indicates that 43,900 square feet or 1.01 acres of usable open
space is being provided. This number may be slightly inflated as the area indicated
includes private stoops. Not all of this area would be considered as “DORA”, because
some of the area is just space between buildings that is not planned for access and use of
all by the residents of the development.
Staff estimates that between 7.5% and 8% of the project area could be considered
“DORA”. The proposed requirement is 12% of the land with allowable reductions via
the PUD process. The proposed project will be required to provide cash in lieu of park
dedication, which is one of the proposed criteria for allowing a reduction via the PUD
process. In this proposal at least a 33% reduction would be needed. A 50% is allowable
provided cash-in-lieu makes up the deficit.
§ Does the proposed preliminary plat meet the design standards of the subdivision
ordinance?
Lots: The proposal shows 7 lots, 1 for each building plus a common lot for the
townhouse portion of the development. This plan preserves the existing
residential lots and alley on the north side of Oxford Street, but requires the
vacation of W. 37th Street. Like Alternative 1, many features that are proposed to
be located on one lot need to be accessed by persons who will be living on
another lot. Pond maintenance will be a continued requirement. The pond is
located on the common townhouse lot, but serves the entire development.
Condominium documents, cross easement agreements and maintenance
agreements are required and must be provided prior to Planning Commission
consideration of the final plat and PUD.
The Alternative 2 proposal creates by default four through lots. The four lots that
are excluded in this alternative will have a full sized private road serving an
additional 60 townhome units in place of a service alley serving 4 residential
properties and the office underground parking. This will impact privacy, noise
levels, desirability of the lots and may possibly impact property values. The
applicant will be required to construct a Bufferyard C between these properties
and the proposed new townhouses and a Bufferyard D between these properties
and the existing office.
Streets: This analysis is similar to Alternative 1, except that in this alternative
the southern private street curves north to avoid the four single family properties
and incorporates a portion of the existing alley. This alignment will require that
the developer provide easements to the existing residential properties for access
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 26 of 39
across the private portion of the roadway. The four residential properties will
experience an increase in traffic along this roadway.
Sidewalks and Trails: The analysis is similar to Alternative 1, except for
Alternative 2 a sidewalk would not ordinarily be required to be installed by the
developer along Oxford Street and Alabama Avenue adjacent to the four
residential properties. This would result in a mid-block incongruence in
streetscape elements both on Alabama and Oxford Street. The developer has
indicated a willingness to complete the sidewalk along Oxford Street to Alabama
Avenue and to complete the sidewalk on Alabama Avenue from Oxford Street to
West 36th Street. This would result in contiguous sidewalks around the entire
block. Staff has included this as a condition of approval.
Erosion Control: The analysis of this requirement is similar to Alternative 1
above.
Tree Removal: The developer has submitted a tree removal plan. According to
the plan, under Alternative 2 the tree replacement requirement would be 825
caliper inches. This includes replacement of 480 caliper inches of City owned
trees and 345 inches of private trees. The preliminary landscape plan shows that
480 caliper inches are being replaced. (This amount could be increased to 634 if
the size of the 77 understory trees shown on the preliminary landscape plan is
increased from 1.5 caliper inches to 2 caliper inches.) Whenever the final
landscape plan is submitted, a final determination for tree replacement
deficiencies will be determined. The City has the option to accept cash-in-lieu of
tree replacement in the amount of $90 per caliper inch or off-site replacement on
public lands. Any off-site replacement will be in areas designated by the
Environmental Coordinator. The Environmental Coordinator has recommended
that preserved Elms be treated to ensure their survival. This has been included as
a condition to be addressed in the association documents.
Landscaping: The subdivision ordinance requires that landscaping be provided
in accordance with requirements of the zoning code. It also requires boulevard
trees to be planted in a required 6-foot boulevard between the sidewalk or trail
and street. The landscaping and bufferyard requirements do not appear to be fully
met in the revised landscape plan that was submitted subsequent to the Planning
Commission public hearing for the preliminary plat and PUD on February 18.
The project will require a bufferyard C along Oxford Street, Alabama Avenue S.
and W. 36th Street. A bufferyard D is required along Wooddale Avenue. Also, a
bufferyard D is required between the residential properties and office building,
and a bufferyard C between the residential properties and new townhouses. The
revised landscape plan does not show existing trees to remain and does not show
required boulevard plantings. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
that a revised landscape plan be submitted that meets all of the bufferyard and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 27 of 39
boulevard tree requirements prior the final plat consideration at the Planning
Commission.
Easements: The same easements that are required for Alternative 1 are also
required for Alternative 2. In addition, for Alternative 2, access easements are
required in favor of the four residential properties over the southern private
roadway.
Stormwater: The subdivision ordinance requires that issues related to storm
water are resolved as a condition of preliminary plat approval. This issue is
addressed under a separate bulleted topic.
Park Dedication: Park and trail dedication is similar to Alternative 1 and will be
required prior to signing the final plat.
Development Agreement: The subdivision ordinance requires that the developer
and City enter into a development agreement prior to any work commencing on
the site. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that this be made a
condition of approval of the preliminary plat.
§ What are traffic implications for this development proposal?
See analysis for Alternative 1. As noted, this proposal also increases traffic impacts on
the existing homes on the north side of Oxford Street.
§ Is there an existing or future need for West 37 Street and the alley north of the
Oxford Street properties that are proposed to be vacated?
The analysis for this is similar to that of Alternative 1 for the vacation of West 37th Street.
However, Alternative 2 does not remove the existing single family properties that the
alley currently serves. With Alternative 2, staff finds that there is both a current and
future public need for the alley. Alternative 2 does show a private street being
developed over the alley right of way. This proposal will require an agreement with the
City for private use of public property. This proposal will also require that the developer
provide easements to the four single family properties for access to the private street.
§ What is the implication of developing only those properties on the west side of
Wooddale Avenue?
See analysis for Alternative 1.
§ What are the implications of approving Alternative 2?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 28 of 39
The Alternative 2 excludes the existing residential properties on the northeast corner of
Oxford Street and Alabama Avenue. This alternative was presented for approval because
Rottlund has thus far not been able to negotiate a purchase of the properties and the
closing date set for the Quadion properties is April 1. Staff, Planning Commission, the
City Council and Elmwood Neighborhood representatives have all expressed a preference
for a project that does include these properties and Rottlund produced preliminary PUD
and plat drawings that included them at the City’s request. Since negotiations with the
remaining two property owners have been proceeding and they have signed consents to
the applications, Rottlund is now requesting that the City Council approve Alternative 1
with a date certain for working out financial assistance for including the four residential
properties. (The City is proposing a date of August 1, 2004, but that date has not been
agreed upon by Rottlund.) If Rottlund negotiates in good faith and agreement cannot be
reached by that date, Alternative 2 would be approved subject to additional conditions
(e.g. completion of sidewalk/streetscape improvements). The alley would not be vacated
under this scenario so vacation has been delayed until after final PUD/plat approval.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution approving Alternative 1 with
conditions and an alternative approval of Alternative 2 with additional conditions if the
City and the applicant cannot reach a financial agreement for public assistance for the
project and if the applicant cannot negotiate a purchase agreement for the residential
properties that it does not currently own.
Attachments: Proposed resolution
Aerial Photo
Elmwood Study Redevelopment Plan
Alternative 1 and 2 site plan
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 29 of 39
RESOLUTION NO._____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
ELMWOOD VILLAGE FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4 MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND R-C MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
3630 WOODDALE AVENUE,
5951 and 5957 WEST 37TH STREET,
5912 OXFORD STREET,
5916 OXFORD STREET,
5920 OXFORD STREET,
and 5926 OXFORD STREET
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat was accepted as complete on December 31,
2003, from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the application did not include all properties that were reguided and
rezoned in order to allow for a residential redevelopment in accordance with the
Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit, and Transportation Study for property bounded by
West 36th Street, Wooddale Avenue, Oxford Street, and Alabama Avenue South, and
WHEREAS, the City Council stated a preference for including all properties
within the Preliminary PUD and Plat, and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted two Preliminary PUD and Plat Alternatives
on _____ where Alternative 1 included all of the properties and Alternative 2 was the
original submittal, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat
alternatives was mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet? of the subject property
plus other affected property owners in the vicinity, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD and Plat
concept alternatives at the meeting of February 18, 2004 , and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD and Plat with
modifications to increase overall density and reduce parking was published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on February 5, 2004, and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 30 of 39
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting
of February 18, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that Alternative 1 is the
preferred alternative for redevelopment of the total property, subject to conditions, on a
6-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that Alternative 2 is an
acceptable alternative development plan, with conditions, for the properties that it covers
and the Commission believes the long term goals of the Elmwood Study as well as the
Comprehensive Plan could be met with the Alternative 2 proposal, although sometime in
the future, and the Commission does not find there would be negative impacts to the
residential properties on the north side of Oxford Street. The recommendation was made
on a 5-0-1 vote with one commissioner abstaining, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning
Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise
including comments in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. The Rottlund Company, Inc. (Quadion Corporation) with the consent of
_____________ and ____________ has made application to the City Council for two
alternative preliminary Planned Unit Development schemes under Section 36-367 of the
St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and for two alternative Preliminary Plats under section
26-___ within the R-4 Multi-Family Residential and R-C Multi-Family Residential
districts located at 3630 Wooddale Avenue, 5951 and 5957 West 37th Street, 5912 Oxford
Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, and 5926 Oxford Street for the legal
description as follows, to-wit:
Parcel 1:
Lots 6 and 7, Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Abstract Land
Parcel 2:
Lots 22 to 35, both inclusive, Block 43, Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park, and the South Half of the vacated alley adjoining
said Lots, according to the recorded plats thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Abstract Land
Parcel 3:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 31 of 39
Lots 4 and 5, Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, according to
the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 18 to 21, inclusive, Block 43,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, and Lots 16 and 17, Block 43,
Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, except that part of said lots
lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the North
line of said Lot 17 distant 2.89 feet Easterly from the
Northwest corner of said Lot 17, to a point on the North line
of said Lot 16 distant 8.89 feet Southeasterly from the most
Northerly corner of said Lot 16, according to the plat thereof
on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The North Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 4 and 5,
Block 43, St. Louis Park Centre, and Lots 14 to 21, inclusive,
Block 43, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to the
recorded plats thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 643802.
Parcel 4:
Lots 30 to 36 inclusive, and that part of the North Half of
the vacated alley adjoining Lots 30 to 36 inclusive, which
lies between the extensions across it of the West line of said
Lot 36 and the East line of Lot 30; Lots 44 to 57 inclusive,
and that part of the South Half of the vacated alley adjoining
Lots 44 to 57 inclusive, which lies between the extensions
across it of the West line of said Lot 44 and the East line of
Lot 57, all in Block 47, "rearrangement of St. Louis Park,"
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
All of the following described tract:
Lots 25 to 29 inclusive, and that part of the North Half of
the vacated alley adjoining Lots 25 to 29 inclusive, which
lies between the extensions across it of the West line of said
Lot 29 and the Southwesterly line of Wooddale Avenue, formerly
Pleasant Avenue; Lots 58 to 64 inclusive, and that part of the
South Half of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 58 to 64
inclusive, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park," which lies
between the extensions across it of the West line of said Lot
58 and the Southwesterly line of Wooddale Avenue, formerly
Pleasant Avenue, all in Block 47, "Rearrangement of St. Louis
Park," according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, except that part thereof which lies
Southeasterly, Easterly and Northeasterly of Line A described
as follows:
Line A: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 58, Block
47, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park; thence Easterly 090
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 32 of 39
degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds, assumed azimuth from North,
19.91 feet along the South line of said Block 47 to the point
of beginning of Line "A"; thence Northeasterly 142.20 feet on
a tangential curve concave to the North, radius 271.56 feet
and central angle 30 degrees 00 minutes 12 seconds; thence
Northerly 015 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds azimuth 26.39
feet; thence Northwesterly 330 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds
azimuth 81.21 feet; thence Northwesterly 157.07 feet on a
tangential curve concave to the Southwest, radius 914.93 feet
and central angle 9 degrees 50 minutes 10 seconds; thence
Northwesterly 320 degrees 41 minutes 31 seconds azimuth 100
feet, tangent to said curve and there terminating.
Lot 7, and that part of the North Half of the vacated alley
adjoining Lot 7, Block 47, "St. Louis Park Centre", lying
between the extensions across it of the East line of said Lot
7 and the West line of Lot 44, Block 47, "Rearrangement of St.
Louis Park";
Lots 8 to 11 inclusive:
All in Block 47, "St. Louis Centre", according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lots 37, 38 and 39, and that part of the North Half of the
vacated alley adjoining Lots 37, 38 and 39, Block 47,
"Rearrangement of St. Louis Park", which lies between the
extensions across it of the West line of said Lot 39 and the
East line of Lot 37, Block 47;
All in "Rearrangement for St. Louis Park", according to the
recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 643803.
Parcel 5:
Lots 14, Block 47, St. Louis Park Centre, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
Abstract Land
Parcel 6:
Lots 40 and 41, Block 47, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract Land
Parcel 7:
Block 1, Collin's Second Addition to St. Louis Park, Minnesota
according to the recorded plat thereof.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 33 of 39
The portion of the alley lying Easterly of Wooddale Avenue
between 36th and 37th Streets for a distance of approximately
250 feet located in:
Lots 1 to 4 inclusive and all of vacated alley and adjoining ½
of Yosemite Avenue vacated, Block 1, Collins 2nd Addition to
St. Louis Park, and
Abstract Land
Parcel 8:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 44, "St. Louis Park", Lots 7 to 11
inclusive, Block 44, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, Lot 6,
Block 44, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, except that part
thereof lying Westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Block 44, Rearrangement
of St. Louis Park; thence Westerly 110.00 feet along the North
line of said Block 44 to the point of beginning of the line to
be described; thence Southerly at a right angle, to the
Southwesterly line of said Block 44 and there terminating,
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County.
Torrens Certificate No. 1039450
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 03-73-PUD) and the effect of the alternative proposed
preliminary PUD and plat schemes on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of
the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of
properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and
compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the alternative preliminary PUD and plat
schemes will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community
nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic
congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The
Council has also determined that the proposed preliminary PUD alternatives are in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements
of Section 36-367(b)(5).
4. The City Council has also determined that Alternative 1 preliminary PUD and plat are
superior in design with more amenities and superior functionality to Alternative 2
preliminary PUD and plat.
5. The contents of Planning Case File 03-73-PUD are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 34 of 39
6. The City may ask the Economic Development Authority to determine whether the
acquisition of the Quadion property east of Wooddale Avenue (i.e. 5810 West 37th Street
and 3601 Wooddale Avenue) is in the public interest in light of the future civic space and
mixed-use envisioned for these properties in the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit and
Transportation Study and the undetermined need for additional right of way on Wooddale
Avenue.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Alternative 1 at the
location described is approved with a 2% increase to density, a 10% decrease to parking,
and a 5-foot increase to building height based on the findings set forth above and subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Preliminary PUD exhibits shall be amended prior to signing to accurately
reflect the resolution approving the preliminary PUD and shall be subject to
approved plan changes through the final PUD process.
2. At least 30 days prior to final PUD consideration by the Planning Commission,
applicant shall submit complete final PUD application materials, including a
request for variance from the private street width requirement of the subdivision
ordinance, which shall comply with conditions of approval of the preliminary
PUD and with issues identified in the staff report including but not limited to:
a. Provide a final landscape plan that meets all of the bufferyard requirements,
requirements for boulevard trees to be installed within 6-foot boulevards
around the periphery of the site, and pond vegetation plantings.
b. Provide a final site plan that:
i. Shows a modified “pork chop” design at the northern access road and
Wooddale Avenue.
ii. Shows 6-foot wide public sidewalks along Alabama Avenue South and
West 36th Street.
iii. Shows a 6-foot boulevard between the sidewalk and curb of abutting
public streets.
c. Provide building elevations indicating proposed building heights and
materials that comply with the R4 District requirements with a maximum 5-
foot building height modification, architecture design and PUD sections of the
code. If building height modifications greater than the 5 feet granted in this
resolution are requested as part of the Final PUD and Plat application, the
Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations
concerning such modification requests. Building elevations shall also comply
with the following:
i. Building elevations for the senior building and shall also show a major
entrance along West 36th Street.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 35 of 39
ii. Building elevations for the condo building shall show either individual
entrances to first floor units or a major entrance on Wooddale Avenue.
iii. The east building elevation of the condominium building shall display
100% Class 1 building materials with window openings similar to those
proposed for the first floor level.
d. Provide a final plat drawing that reflects additional right of way dedication to
accommodate the right turn lane and trail at the northern end of Wooddale
Avenue.
e. Provide a detailed plan of the usable open space showing how it will meet the
proposed new designed outdoor recreation area definition.
f. Provide documents showing proposed cross-easements within the
development including parking easements between the office use and
residential uses and condominium documents in accordance with subdivision
requirements. The condominium documents shall include a clause that states
the condominium association agrees to provide regular injections to any Elm
trees that are shown as remaining on the tree removal and landscape plans.
g. Provide details of the pond, showing how it is lined to retain permanent water
to the 194.0 elevation, and proposed landscaping.
h. Provide details for the retaining wall that show either how an artistically
designed pattern or other public art, such as a mural, will be applied to the
wall and how it will be protected from graffiti.
i. Provide a final grading plan that:
1. Provides details for the two-stage outlet for the pond used in the
hydrologic calculations submitted for approval.
2. Reduces as much as possible the drainage area tributary to each
underground parking driveway.
3. Shows lift stations at each parking garage entrance.
4. Identified locations to which roof drains will direct water.
5. Reflects an additional storm sewer to be installed in the northerly parking
area to collect runoff prior to this area draining to the east to Wooddale
Avenue.
3. Final PUD and plat approval and development is contingent upon developer
meeting all conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District requirements.
4. A PUD ordinance modification to allow a parking reduction of 10% is contingent
upon final PUD approval.
5. A PUD ordinance modification to allow the overall housing density increase of
2% within the PUD is contingent upon final PUD approval.
6. A PUD ordinance modification to allow a building height increase of 5 feet for
the senior building and condominium building is contingent upon final PUD
approval.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 36 of 39
7. Prior to the City signing the Final Plat the applicant shall comply with the
following requirements:
a. Submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of $1000 to insure that a mylar copy of the final plat is
provided.
c. Provide a 12-foot easement for additional right of way along the east side
of Wooddale Avenue.
d. Provide an easement for the required sidewalks along Alabama Avenue
South and West 36th Street.
e. The City Council shall adopt an ordinance vacating that portion of West
37th Street between Wooddale Avenue and Alabama Avenue South and
the alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue South.
f. Submit payment for cash in lieu of park dedication in the amount of $900
per dwelling unit and trail dedication in the amount of $225 per dwelling
unit.
8. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained.
c. Sign assent form and Final PUD and Plat official exhibits.
d. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility
permits and other permits required by the City, which may impose
additional conditions.
e. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and
the City, which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and
maintenance, repair and cleaning of public streets, construction conditions,
off site infrastructure improvements and cost share formulas, off-site
parking, and criteria for administrative amendments to the PUD.
f. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of sidewalk installation and
repair/cleaning of public streets, and tree replacement.
g. Submit a check in the amount equal to $90 per caliper inch of the
difference between required tree replacement and the actual replacement
as reflected by the final landscape plan.
g. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
h. Provide to the city a mylar of the final plat along with proof of filing same
with the county.
9. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional
requirements, the developer shall comply with the following:
a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during
construction.
b. The applicant shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the trail
and sidewalk easements.
c. Building materials samples shall be submitted to and approved by City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 37 of 39
d. A lighting plan and photometrics and irrigation plan meeting the ordinance
regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the community
development department.
10. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on
weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all
times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
11. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of
any condition of this approval.
12. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Resolution, approval of the
preliminary PUD and preliminary plat for Alternative 1 is conditioned on the
developer and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA)
having by August 1, 2004 reached a preliminary written agreement regarding tax
increment assistance for development of the subject property in accordance with
all the other terms and conditions of this resolution. Such preliminary agreement
must (a) specify the principal amount and interest rate on a tax increment “pay as
you go” revenue note, (b) be subject to the legal authority of the EDA and City to
make all the findings required to establish a redevelopment tax increment district
under Minnesota law, (c) be subject to negotiation of a final contract for private
redevelopment that includes construction schedules, provision for recapture of tax
increment assistance, and other usual and customary terms for EDA
redevelopment contracts, and (d) be approved by the EDA board of
commissioners. The August 1, 2004, deadline can be extended by agreement of
both parties.
13. If the preliminary agreement referenced in paragraph 12 is not fully executed by
August 1, 2004, the preliminary PUD and preliminary plat is deemed approved
for Alternative 2, for property described in Finding No. 1, excluding
____________________. The approval of Alternative 2 is subject to the
developer negotiating in good faith and accepting a reasonable tax increment
assistance agreement and all other terms and conditions of this resolution, except
for the following modifications:
a. The street and alley vacations noted in 6e above are modified to include only
the vacation of West 37th Street and not the alley.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 38 of 39
b. At least 30 days prior to final PUD consideration by the Planning
Commission, applicant shall submit the following:
i. A final PUD site plan that shows additional sidewalks to be
installed by the developer at the developer’s cost along Oxford
Street and Alabama Avenue adjacent to the four residential
properties that are excluded in the Alternative 2 proposal.
ii. A final grading plan that indicates a first floor elevation for the
townhouse building located on the proposed Lot ___ to be no
higher than 207.
iii. A final landscape plan that reflects a Bufferyard C between these
properties and the proposed new townhouses and a Bufferyard D
between these properties and the existing office.
c. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
i. Reach an agreement with the City to permanently maintain the
alley on the north side of Oxford Street.
ii. Reach an agreement with the City for the private use of public land
in order to use the platted alley right of way for the private
roadway.
14. If a preliminary agreement is fully executed by August 1, 2004 in accordance with
paragraph 15, the preliminary PUD and plat approval in this resolution relates solely
to Alternative 1, and nothing in this resolution will be construed as approval of
Alternative 2 notwithstanding any events after August 1, 2004.
15. If the Economic Development Agency (EDA) of the City so requests, the developer
will negotiate in good faith on the sale of 5810 West 37th Street and 3610 Wooddale
Avenue to the EDA.
16. When Quadion Corporation vacates the premises on 5810 West 37th Street and 3610
Wooddale Avenue, re-occupancy of those properties will not be allowed unless
adequate parking that meets the requirements of the St. Louis Park zoning code is
provided.
Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The
development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 15, 2004
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
032204 - 2 - Rottlund Preliminary PUD and Plat
Page 39 of 39
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
03-73-PUD prelim/res-ord