Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/11/10 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session (2)Official minutes City council study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Nov. 10, 2025 The meeting convened at 6:34 p.m. Council Members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, Lynette Dumalag, Sue Budd, Tim Brausen, Yolanda Farris, Paul Baudhuin Council Members absent: none Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), senior planner (Ms. Chamberlain), community development director, interim building and energy director (Ms. Barton), zoning administrator (Mr. Morrison), economic development manager (Ms. Monson), planning manager (Mr. Walther) Guests: Jeff Miller, Consultant with HKGi Discussion items 1. Boards and Commissions check in with the city council: Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. Flanagan, planning commission chair, presented the report. The planning commission and the board of zoning appeals (BOZA) are statutory boards composed of the same members. The planning commission serves in an advisory capacity to the city council on matters where authority is granted to the council by state law or the city charter. These matters include land use, comprehensive planning, zoning, platting, street modifications and other general planning issues. Additionally, the board of zoning appeals reviews and makes recommendations on matters referred to it or as required under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Flanagan reviewed the commission’s accomplishments in 2025 and highlighted the 2026 work plan for the planning commission, including: 1. Planning and zoning application review: Review planning and zoning applications submitted to the city; hold public hearings to help inform commission recommendations and BOZA and council decisions. 2. Zoning code update: Review and recommend changes to the zoning code to better reflect the city’s strategic priorities and implement the comprehensive plan goals, policies and strategies. • Phase 2 – Commercial, office, business park, and industrial districts and related zoning map changes and performance standards. In the first quarter of 2026, the planning commission will hold a public hearing and recommend changes to the zoning map and non-residential district zoning standards and performance standards. Study session minutes -2- Nov. 10, 2025 3. Implementation of Arrive + Thrive: St. Louis Park Gateways Plan: Review the online implementation tracker and get annual updates on progress. 4. 2050 Comprehensive Plan: Identify how the outcomes of Vision 4.0 can be woven throughout the comprehensive planning process, expected to last from 2026-2028. Review selected regional planning documents as they apply to the city. Review policies and strategies amended in the comprehensive plan and review iterations of the comprehensive plan chapters. Monitor overall progress until adopted. 5. Broaden participation: Identify strategies to broaden and reduce barriers to public participation. • Have a joint meeting with other commission(s) on a topic of shared interest/responsibility. • Hold a planning commission meeting at an off-site location to foster community relationships. (e.g., study sessions with topics of general interest, development project tours, etc.) • Help recruit community members with diverse experiences to apply for vacancies on boards and commissions, task forces, committee, or other volunteer opportunities. Mr. Flanagan noted future ideas: • Water conservation and water recycling: Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect groundwater resources. • Housing analysis: Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on the present inventory and unmet demand and promote homeownership opportunities as well as inclusionary housing goals. Council Member Budd noted the 2025 work plan related to addressing requests within a 60-day window and asked how big a challenge that is. Ms. Chamberlain stated that staff are very diligent about maintaining that 60-day window. City staff can initiate an extension of an additional 60-days for a total of up to 120 days, while the applicant can approve an extension after that time. Council Member Rog asked whether the planning commission allows remote comments and if any progress has been made in that space, adding she is supportive. Ms. Chamberlain stated that the practice has not been added and that the item will continue onto the 2026 work plan. Mr. Flanagan added that the planning commission accepts emailed comments. Council Member Brausen asked whether stipends were extended for the planning commission. Ms. Chamberlain confirmed that stipends were extended. Regarding remote comments, Council Member Brausen stated that he assumes there are state laws supporting remote community engagement measures. Ms. Keller confirmed this is true and noted that staff capacity to work with remote comments is another consideration, recalling that technology use and integration during meetings has been an issue in the past. Study session minutes -3- Nov. 10, 2025 Council Member Brausen stated that he supports the planning commission’s inclusion of water conservation and water recycling in their future ideas. He suggested that a joint meeting with the Environmental Sustainability Commission might be warranted. The city council regularly accesses the planning commission minutes. He stated the questions, comments and recommendations made during planning commission meetings are wonderful. Council Member Brausen complimented the commission to keep up the great work. Council Member Budd asked for more information on the visit to Union Park Flats. She asked if residents were in attendance. Mr. Flanagan stated the meeting was open to the public but that no residents attended. Mr. Flanagan shared that the visit included of a tour of the development along with an overview of the building and a question-and-answer session. Council Member Rog asked what is working well for the planning commission and if there are any gaps or opportunities. Mr. Flanagan stated that while the planning commission gets direction from the city council, it can be difficult at times to know if they are aligned with the council on zoning and other issues, adding some extra guidance or input would be helpful. Council Member Rog stated that the planning commission and staff do excellent work. Council Member Dumalag noted future plans related to housing analysis, adding that it will be interesting to see if the policies put forth manifest themselves in physical spaces. Council Member Dumalag referenced a recent vote on a development for a Chipotle in the Knollwood area, and how it related to accessibility. As the city population is getting older, the accessibility issue will become more apparent and she wanted to flag that for the planning commission. Mr. Flanagan agreed and stated the planning commission will continue to work on accessibility needs as projects that come forward. Council Member Baudhuin thanked Mr. Flanagan for his work and the planning commission minutes, noting that he appreciates the volume of work being done. Council Member Budd asked if the planning commission is fully staffed. Mr. Flanagan stated yes and noted a new commissioner was recently appointed as well as a new youth member. Mayor Mohamed thanked Mr. Flanagan for his presentation and for all the work the planning commission does. 2. Zoning code update discussion Mr. Morrison stated that the planning commission provided direction to staff at five study sessions conducted since May of 2025. The feedback resulted in the draft summarized in the staff report. The amendments to the zoning code propose updates to the administration procedures and zoning district regulations. It also proposes updates to the special provisions, which include parking, landscaping, signage, and architectural design. The amendment will reformat the ordinance into the format established with the first phase of the update approved earlier this year. Study session minutes -4- Nov. 10, 2025 Mr. Morrison stated public outreach included a project webpage, community-wide emails and articles in the Park Perspective. Staff conducted a community survey from May 22, 2025, to Aug. 24, 2025. The survey was available in the languages of English, Spanish and Somali. There were 240 respondents (239 in English, one in Spanish). Staff is also conducting a second survey focused on the business community, and a third phase of engagement is planned for January 2026 that will include open houses and online opportunities. Comments and questions from the city council related to major changes noted below: • Replacing the Office, Business Park and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts with mixed-use districts • Changing the zoning map district boundaries • Utilizing density and height bonuses to achieve policy objectives • Determining uses that need council review • Reducing parking minimum requirements • Revising the public hearing process for variances Council Member Budd asked for an explanation of C2 and Mixed-Use (MU-2) zoning. Mr. Morrison stated “big box” retail is intended to be kept in the B1 district – general business. Mr. Morrison added that some smaller retail businesses in the Knollwood area or on Excelsior Boulevard could move into MU-1 or 2. Council Member Rog asked if the zoning codes will move into the municipal code. Mr. Walther stated that the zoning codes information could be moved into that format at some point. Council Member Brausen asked for clarification on where the school properties are marked on the maps. Mr. Morrison stated that schools are in the neighborhood zoned areas. Council Member Rog asked if there was anything dramatically different in the zoning map proposal. Mr. Morrison stated no, adding it was not staff’s intent to change anything dramatically. The biggest changes are what we discussed with the changes to the zoning districts and integrating the results of the Arrive and Thrive plan. Mr. Morrison added that the map reflects placing zoning districts with similar heights adjacent to N1 and N2 districts. Council Member Budd asked how much existing density bonuses in the zoning code have been used. Mr. Walther stated only one project has used the density bonuses, but it did not include the available inclusionary housing bonus. The district design requirements have been a barrier, the point system for bonuses has been too complex, and the points awarded for inclusionary housing have not been enough incentive. Council Member Rog stated she has concerns about community response to many changes. The council should be cautious in how this would come about in the community, and aware of other ways to meet goals more comfortably through community expectations. Council Member Baudhuin added that there are uncertainties already with the potential change of existing one-story buildings being replaced or added onto to be up to three stories tall, adding that he would like to research potential density or height bonuses further before Study session minutes -5- Nov. 10, 2025 proceeding, asking if it could be added later. Mr. Walther stated yes, noting that bonuses in the MU-1 district could be delayed and discussed further by the planning commission and city council at a later date. Council Member Budd stated that no matter how compelling residents' arguments might be, the city council cannot deny if all conditions are met. Mr. Walther clarified council cannot decide to deny based only on neighborhood opposition but can choose to deny if the issue does not meet the standards of the conditional use permit (CUP). Council Member Brausen asked which zone Union Flats would be included in. Mr. Walther stated it’s currently in N2, but it would fit best in MU1 or MU2 because of its proximity to light rail transit. Council Member Rog asked if density bonuses are predetermined now. Mr. Walther stated it is a complicated points system now, but staff is looking to simplify it and set a standard to make the system easier to understand. Council Member Rog stated the Green Building policy is an investment that has a payoff and is the kind of incentive that is beneficial for building owners. Council Member Dumalag stated she feels the Green Building policy is at risk with the federal administration. Council Member Budd stated she prefers to keep the Green Building policy. Council Member Baudhuin added that incentivizing something that is already a financial benefit to developers gives him pause. Mayor Mohamed asked about parking standards and if the existing standards would remain in the Walker Lake district only or be district-wide. Mr. Morrison stated the existing parking standards would apply to the MU-1, MU-2 and MU-3 districts only, and no parking minimums for non-residential uses would be required in the Walker Lake district only. Council Member Baudhuin stated he likes the parking standards at the Walker Lake district and making places less focused on parking and more on walkability in general. Council Members Farris, Budd and Dumalag agreed. Council Member Dumalag stated that while she is in favor, crosswalk use is also important to walkability. Council Member Rog asked what the difference is between allowing any use to occupy any building and having no parking minimums. Mr. Walther stated that in Walker Lake, there were existing buildings that were redone for other uses, so parking was not required and on-street parking was accepted. Parking was a barrier but doing away with parking minimums has been positive for the Walker Lake district. Study session minutes -6- Nov. 10, 2025 Council Member Rog asked if parking minimums might present a challenge in other parts of the city. Mr. Morrison stated challenges may result from a broader use of on-street parking. Council Member Rog stated she is pleased with parking in the Walker Lake district. Council Member Rog stated with regards to planning commission and city council approval of projects, the planning commission minutes sometimes reflect comments and input that are outside the scope of the project, but improves the project with small recommendations, and there is a benefit when the process is adhered to. Council Member Rog added that there is an awareness factor as well, with projects going through administratively, and staff should make sure the council is aware. Mr. Morrison added that he understands the benefit of additional eyes on projects is helpful. Council Member Dumalag agreed with Council Member Rog’s comments and noted that with the parking ramp in Beltline, there was feedback and public engagement involved, and it is helpful to hear both from staff and from the council regarding expectations. Council Member Baudhuin shared that he appreciates examples to help clarify projects. Mr. Morrison stated that staff can structure the draft ordinance so that if there are limits that trigger a CUP, they can be put into specific use standards rather than using a table that applies citywide. Mr. Walther stated the staff will work with the council’s input to be ready for community engagement. Mr. Morrison noted that staff is looking at the variance process and noted several changes with notices and mailings that would be sent to adjacent properties only. Mr. Walther noted that this would streamline the formal variance process. Council Member Budd asked about the mailed notice and the public hearing. Mr. Morrison stated the public hearing would still be held and comments would be taken; this would also be written into the ordinance. Mr. Morrison stated council’s comments will go to the planning commission at their Dec. 3, 2025 meeting. After the open house events, the draft of the ordinance would next be brought to the planning commission for review before scheduling the public hearing. Staff asked for council to provide input on the policy question, does the city council support the staff and planning commission sharing the proposed changes to the zoning districts, performance standards, and administrative procedures with the public in January 2026? The council agreed with the policy question. Written Reports 3. Conveyance of EDA-owned land to the city – all wards. Study session minutes -7- Nov. 10, 2025 Council Member Dumalag asked if the conveyance of EDA-owned land to the city includes the dump site. Mr. Walther confirmed this. 4. Sewer access charge (SAC) credit policy Council Member Rog stated that this summer, some businesses in the city received notice that their Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) fees were increasing. Mr. Walther stated there was concern because some businesses were adding outdoor seating and their fees would change as a result of expansion. He stated this is a one-time fee only and not ongoing. However, it is a significant fee, so there were some concerns from businesses. Council Member Budd stated that a few businesses she spoke to said they did not want to go through the process, so they stopped offering patio seating because of the fees. Mr. Walther stated that staff reached out to the business and explained the process and the Met Council component. Council Member Rog asked if usage shrinks, could there be any reversal of the fees. Ms. Barton stated yes; that is where the credits come in and the fees are paid only once by the business. 5. Development update Q4 2025 Council Member Brausen stated that there are several projects with construction that is not progressing because of financial issues. Council Member Brausen asked about the Arlington East and West project being dropped. Mr. Walther stated it was dropped because the preliminary plat had expired and noted multiple extensions were given. The plat approval process will have to be undertaken again. 6. Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes update – Ward 1 Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor