Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/09/03 - ADMIN - Minutes - Planning Commission - Study SessionOfficial Minutes Planning commission September 3, 2025 6:00 p.m. Planning commission Study Session Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, John Flanagan, Sarah Strain, Tom Weber Members absent: Sylvie Hyman Staff present: Gary Morrison Guests: Jeff Miller and Beth Richmond from HKGi presented the report. 1. Zoning Code Update phase 2 – updates to Article V Special Provisions Mr. Miller stated HKGi will present the results of the community survey, which closed at the end of August, and provide an analysis of Article V Special Provisions of the zoning code, including the following topics: parking & loading facilities, landscaping, screening, signage, and community survey results. Mr. Miller stated that the survey questions focused on the neighborhood corridors and commercial spaces and received 240 responses. He reported in detail on the survey results, which are included in the staff report. Commissioner Beneke asked about offset parking . Ms. Richmond stated it relates to restrictions in parking, with the limit of 300 feet from a residential structure and 500 feet from a non-residential structure. Commissioner Divecha added she was pleased to see that more people are not asking for more parking in the survey results. Commissioner Eckholm stated it is difficult to narrow in on what sort of parking issues are a legitimate concern and what are a scarcity mindset from the community, as many issues are emotionally charged. Commissioner Eckholm stated that more parking requirements in certain areas of the city may be a harder sell. Ms. Richmond asked the commissioners if there are parking issues that the planning commission has heard about or areas that should be focused on. Mr. Morrison noted there are many city-owned and maintained parking lots around the city, particularly in the Walker Lake area. He added, over time the city would like to get away from owning and maintaining these parking lots. Docusign Envelope ID: 058E2A99-A545-4108-881E-1FC55784E398 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Sept. 3, 2025 2 Commissioner Weber stated it would be best to limit parking . Commissioner Divecha asked what the argument for mandating parking is. Ms. Richmond stated that the argument is that businesses will not provide enough parking on their own, and then it becomes an issue if people park on the street and elsewhere. She continued, it is at the multifamily apartments where enough parking has not been provided. Mr. Morrison noted the city has street permit parking around the schools and on Vallacher Ave., and near the Ellipse Apartments. Ms. Richmond stated that, for financing requirements, many times developers must show they have parking for apartment buildings. Commissioner Eckholm stated that the conversation always goes back to there not being enough parking. He stated he is less concerned about restaurants and small businesses, but noted larger commercial businesses will provide ample parking if they feel it is pertinent to their business. Commissioner Weber stated the goals should be to add flexibility to the requirements and let businesses open. Commissioner Eckholm added also, because delivery has increased, many businesses do not need 9 parking spaces any longer, similar to the Chipotle development , which is order and pick up through the drive-through. Commissioner Eckholm stated he would like to take the parking restrictions out of the Walker Lake district. He added that the area around The Block is very busy with parking around the restaurant. He stated it is only a problem here because people are used to parking in front of where they are going. Commissioner Weber asked if, in the Miracle Mile area, there is a way to have a parking code for the neighborhood, and cut parking by 30% by 2050, and if that should be the vision to work toward. Commissioner Eckholm added that if the county is not going to shrink the road, then we need to put the building up right next to the road to make it denser, so drivers go slower. He added, however, that he is not sure how realistic the idea is, especially because Miracle Mile bumps up to neighborhoods on the south side of Excelsior. Mr. Morrison stated the city can work with the residential owners to create alleyways behind their homes to also include parking behind businesses, rather than in front. He added, however, that it comes down to what property owners are willing to do. Docusign Envelope ID: 058E2A99-A545-4108-881E-1FC55784E398 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Sept. 3, 2025 3 Commissioner Divecha stated that when we require minimums, we are blocking off areas of the city for cars over people. She stated she understands the issue, but it constrains what we want someplace like the Walker Lake area to be. Commissioner Weber stated there are two parking spaces for each classroom at the high school and asked what those spaces are based on. Ms. Richmond stated that these are for two spaces for each classroom for teachers and support staff. Mr. Miller stated he notes the commissioners are interested in expanding parking at Walker Lake to other areas, there is interest in having new construction have more flexibility at Walker Lake, also, and so parking is not as restrictive there. Commissioner Strain asked about what exists in the parking code and if there is flexibility, and if it has to be a permanent easement. She asked if there is a way to get at some of these issues, expand shared parking options, and rely more on traffic reports. Mr. Morrison stated the city does have the ability to be flexible with parking standards, but a CUP that goes before council and documentation that provides a reason for a reduction in parking. He stated CUP is not, however, required to be flexible, and added there is flexibility in transit areas within the code, and within a certain distance to light rail . He added that this is a policy issue for the planning commission and the city council to decide. Commissioner Divecha asked about the CUP. Ms. Richmond stated that currently, off-site parking requires a CUP. Ms. Richmond asked about non-residential areas. She asked if the planning commission would want to adjust or eliminate non-residential. Commissioner Eckholm stated that for M2 and M3, for more mixes and uses in the bigger areas, there are more single-use buildings, and if we encourage this, the mix of uses does not occur. Mr. Morrison stated that in Walker Lake, the parking helps to encourage mixed use. Commissioner Eckholm stated he would like to get rid of minimums for parking where the commission can. Commissioner Weber stated that this discussion by the planning commission will need to be presented to the city council and then agreed upon by at least 4 council members to move forward. Commissioner Divecha stated the planning commission needs to take this further, though. Commissioner Weber stated that the planning commission will have more opportunities to respond to parking. Docusign Envelope ID: 058E2A99-A545-4108-881E-1FC55784E398 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Sept. 3, 2025 4 Mr. Morrison added that working to fine-tune parking is a big first step. Chair Flanagan asked about timelines and how soon we can see if it works, so the discussions can keep going. Mr. Morrison stated that staff will update the city council in October regarding parking . Ms. Richmond explained alternative landscaping, special design features, such as rain gardens, native landscaping, and more creative ways of keeping property . She stated this section is very subjective and does not provide guidance vs. regular requirements. Mr. Morrison stated that the intent is to show that landscaping is not always only trees . Commissioner Weber noted the city is losing tree canopy and asked if there are ways to be creative on replacement through the zoning code. Ms. Richmond noted that the screening discussion will move into its own separate section and will be looked at within the parking lots. She stated that signage cannot be regulated now because of free speech, but no big changes to signs are allowed. She added that super graphic signs and murals will also be reviewed, while being content -neutral. Ms. Richmond stated the next discussion with the planning commission will be in October to discuss procedures, definitions, and general zoning provisions . Mr. Miller stated there will be more discussions and that parking may move out of this process for further in-depth discussion. Commissioner Eckholm agreed. Commissioner Divecha stated she would be interested in some case studies on parking as well, with more robust discussion. The following comments submitted by Commissioner Hyman were distributed to the commissioners. From: Sylvie Hyman <sylvishawn7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:15 PM To: Laura Chamberlain <LChamberlain@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>; Sean Walther <SWalther@stlouisparkmn.gov> Subject: Sylvie's Comments for 9/3 Planning Commission Study Session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Laura, Sean, and Gary, My apologies for getting this in so late. Here are my comments for tonight's meeting. I'm very sad to be missing this one! Docusign Envelope ID: 058E2A99-A545-4108-881E-1FC55784E398 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Sept. 3, 2025 5 Parking structures- we should not encourage developers to build parking structures by including density bonuses for underground parking. These are more costly and all of that cost is passed on to those who can least afford it. We should look at eliminating mandates everywhere we can and keeping them in strategically where they won't pass costs onto non-drivers. Incentivise underground parking structures by limiting the impervious surfaces they are allowed to build at grade for the purpose of parking. Residential parking mandates should be 100% eliminated. Everyone needs a home but not everyone needs to park a car. What benefits individuals is unique to the individual so by mandating something that only benefits a certain group we are punishing non- drivers. Non-drivers are people who can't afford car ownership, are too young for a driver's license, people with disabilities that prevent them from driving, or people who choose not to drive for environmental reasons, convenience, or cost. Passing unnecessary costs on to non-drivers is wrong. Mandates make it less affordable to build homes while the region desperately needs more homes. Infill development is crucial for preventing more damaging sprawl, especially in first ring suburbs like St. Louis Park . Many of the survey responses expressed desires for small businesses and medium density development, but these types of development are stifled by parking mandates. Mandates for all other uses should also be reduced or eliminated. For places where minimums are kept, there should be alternatives offered, like the installation of bicycle parking or parklets in place of mandated parking spaces. Looking more specifically at the zoning map, anything within a quarter mile of the light rail stations should have no minimum parking requirements. All parking spaces should be accompanied by tree planting, native rain gardens, or other ecological features to offset the environmental harms done by the additional impervious surface and car use. Bicycle parking requirements should also be eliminated and replaced with incentives/programs to support the installation of secure, easy to use bicycle parking facilities. Also the city should use revenue from the sale of city owned lots to build bike parking in public right of way. Sec 36-361 Off street Parking (a) Purpose states that the purpose of regulating off street parking is to "prevent congestion" and for "safety", but excess parking encourages more driving which is the main cause of congestion on our streets. They also make spaces less safe by putting more cars in spaces where people should be. Rather than requiring parking, we should require safety features and environmental mitigation to offset the harms and threats from driving and parking. Question responses: 1. (Survey) Will the city be doing more engagement leading up to the public hearing(s) for this? How do the percentages of homeowners/renters who responded correspond to the percentages of homeowners/renters who live in SLP? Docusign Envelope ID: 058E2A99-A545-4108-881E-1FC55784E398 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Sept. 3, 2025 6 2. (CUP for off-site parking) Need for the permits should be eliminated or reduced with the mandates. 3. (Min parking caused issues) It's hard to know what could have been built if we hadn't built so much parking. The main issue I see is lack of tree canopy and greenspace due to excessive amounts of land being devoted to parking lots. 4. (Table 36-361b applied to MU, C-1, other districts) Parking should not be required, but if it must be then we should require an amount proportional to the amount of people who DRIVE to the place, not the amount of people we expect to BE at those places. 5. (Existing landscaping requirements) I'm no expert, but my personal opinion is that the current requirements are overly complicated. I feel like there should be a simpler way to get the benefits we're looking for when it comes to supporting habitats for pollinators, cleaning up the watershed, adding/maintaining shade trees, etc. I think that providing incentives and support (like the native plant sale) for these elements are much more beneficial than complex mandates that most people won't follow and likely won't be enforced. 6. (ideas to improve/make less subjective) Everywhere it has single and 2 unit dwellings exempted should be extended to all N1 and maybe even N2. Sec 36-364 (d) (3) Landscaping requirements Change from trees per dwelling unit to trees per square footage of dwelling space. Eliminate fence requirements unless they are needed to protect people from some hazard. Find better ways to protect people from hazards or eliminate the hazards. Best regards, Sylvie Hyman sylvishawn7@gmail.com @sylvie-h.bsky.social (561) 809-3059 Future scheduled meeting/event dates: September 17, 2025 – planning commission regular meeting October 8, 2025 – planning commission study session* October 15, 2025 – planning commission regular meeting November 5, 2025 – planning commission regular meeting *Meeting held on October 8, 2025 (Yom Kippur is October 1 and 2) Adjournment – 8:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison John Flanagan, chair member Docusign Envelope ID: 058E2A99-A545-4108-881E-1FC55784E398