Council reviews rezoning request to allow planned residential project on Woodland Avenue site; councilors press on trees, traffic and long-term conditions

5691221 · April 24, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Duluth considered rezoning an eight-acre Woodland Avenue parcel from R-1 to a Residential Planned district that would allow a maximum of 75 units; staff and councilors debated tree preservation, traffic capacity, stormwater treatment and whether rezoning conditions would bind future owners.

The City of Duluth city council considered an ordinance to rezone an eight-acre parcel from Residential Traditional (R-1) to a Residential Planned (RP) district, part of a proposed multi-family development that the applicant asked to cap at a maximum of 75 units (the applicant has said it plans roughly 66 units). Councilors pressed staff on tree preservation, traffic capacity on Woodland Avenue, stormwater treatment, and whether conditions attached to the rezoning would remain with the property if sold.

Vice President Nephew, Councilor Mayo, Councilor Dirwachter and other councilors asked detailed questions. Jen Moses, staff presenting the item, said the RP application identifies preservation of open space, retention of significant trees, and a public trail as public benefits tied to the rezoning. Moses said the site is roughly eight acres and that, according to the city’s comprehensive plan guidance for an R-1 base district, a goal density would be roughly 4 to 8 units per acre — about 32 to 64 units — but that under an RP the applicant requested up to 75 as a maximum.

Moses told the council that the RP approval would set a maximum density and maximum height and that the development cannot exceed the uses and density shown in the approved application. She also said that the RP concept plan attached to the ordinance would regulate what can be built on the site going forward, and that those conditions remain with the property even if ownership changes; any future amendment would require council action.

On traffic, Moses said the city reached out to St. Louis County transportation engineer Vic Lund, who included the site in scoping for the Woodland Avenue reconstruction. Lund reported Woodland Avenue is designed to carry 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day and currently carries about 8,000 to 9,000, so the additional traffic from the proposed development would be small relative to the road’s capacity; he recommended turn lanes to accommodate safe access.

On trees and stormwater, Moses said tree-preservation rules apply regardless of zoning, and that the RP application permanently preserves a significant number of trees. If the site were developed under R-1 with substantially more clearing, the developer could instead pay into the city forester’s tree fund as an alternative to on-site replacement. Moses said stormwater requirements would apply and that, because the site drains to a cold-water stream, higher thresholds for stormwater treatment would apply under city rules.

Councilor Dirwachter asked whether the parcel had previously been part of Hartley; staff said the parcel had been a single-family property and was not part of Hartley. Dirwachter also raised that Planning Commission materials and an audio file referenced outreach and prior planning-commission discussion on March 27 and April 8; staff said they would check the record and provide any missing materials.

Councilor Mayo asked whether the internal road would be public or private; Moses said the developer proposed a private road to be owned and maintained by the developer. Councilor Dirwachter asked whether a future buyer could remove more trees than the current applicant proposes; Moses said conditions in the RP carry with the property and would remain in effect unless amended by council.

Attorney Loehr said he would follow up on a council question about whether the council would act in a quasi‑judicial role for the ordinance and report back.

Why it matters: The rezoning would change allowable uses, density and design for the site and sets binding conditions that become part of the property’s RP district. Council scrutiny focused on protecting environmental resources (tree preservation and stream protection), ensuring traffic safety at Woodland Avenue, and preserving the effect of the council’s conditions if ownership changes. The transcript did not include a final vote on the ordinance in the excerpt provided.