HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/01/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Planning commission meeting
January 7, 2026
6:00 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther at 952.924.2574 or the
administration department at 952.924.2525.
Planning commission meeting
The St. Louis Park Planning Commission is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005
Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend the planning commission meeting in
person or watch the regular meeting by webstream at www.parktv.org and on local cable
(Comcast SD channel 14 and HD channel 798). Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and
reports.
You can provide comment on agenda items in person at the meeting or by emailing your
comments to info@stlouispark.org by noon the day of the meeting. Comments must be related
to an item on the meeting agenda.
Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Call to order – roll call
2. Approval of minutes – Oct. 8, 2025; Oct. 15, 2025; Nov. 5, 2025 and Dec. 3, 2025
3. Hearing
3.a. Application name: Park Community Church conditional use permit
Location: 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
Applicant: Park Community Church
Case No: 25-08-CUP
4. Other Business
4.a. 2026 Work Plan
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
Future scheduled meeting/event dates:
January 21, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
February 4, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
February 25, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting*
March 4, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting
*meeting held on Feb. 25, 2026 since Ash Wednesday is Feb. 18, 2026.
1
2
Planning commission
October 8, 2025
6:00 p.m.
Planning commission
Study Session
Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, John Flanagan, Sarah Strain,
Tom Weber, Sylvie Hyman, Tess Machalek
Members absent: none
Staff present: Gary Morrison
Guests: Jeff Miller and Beth Richmond from HKGi presented the report.
Mr. Miller stated HKGi will present the draft updates to:
a. Article I general
b. Article II administration and enforcement
c. Article III general provisions
d. Article VI nonconformities
e. Potential thresholds for CUP/planning commission review
f. Community engagement update
g. Next steps
Mr. Miller stated that the proposed amendments to Article I will consolidate all the
definitions into one place. There are currently definitions found in various sections of the
code, which can be confusing. Additional definitions will be added related to the new uses
tables for the zoning districts. They will also relocate Article VI (nonconformities) into
Article I.
Article I
Commissioner Weber asked about the sequence of sections and the outdated language of
Article I. Why does it start with the findings, then has the purpose for the code. Asked if the
sequence of the two sections could be flipped, so the code purpose is first. The purpose
should identify that this chapter is “the zoning code.” Consider incorporating finding (b) and
potentially (g) into the purpose or an introduction sentence to this article. The
commissioners suggested a number of potential edits to the outdated language of the
purpose, findings, interpretation, and definitions in this article.
Article III
Mr. Miller reviewed the main changes proposed for Article III (general provisions). He said
there are a variety of unrelated sections in this article.
1. They will relocate the home occupations, short-term rental, and temporary uses to
the new use specific standards article.
2. The fence section will be consolidated into the new screening section to be located
in the development standards article.
3
Unofficial Minutes
Planning commission study session
Oct. 8, 2025
3. The required yards and open space, and the grading/filing sections will be relocated
to the development standards article.
Article II
Mr. Miller reviewed the proposed changes to Article II (administrative and enforcement).
He stated that the zoning code currently requires a public hearing held by the board of
zoning appeals or planning commission for a variance request. He noted that the MN
statutes do not require cities to hold a public hearing for variances. He asked the
commission if there is any interest in making changes to the public hearing requirement for
a variance request? He noted that the zoning ordinance currently requires the variance
process to follow the same public hearing process required for a conditional use permit
(CUP) which requires publication in the city’s official newspaper, mailed notices to all
properties within 350 feet, deadlines for each of these two steps that require them to occur
within a specified number of days before the meeting, and a public hearing conducted at
the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) or planning commission. He noted that the city could
still include a public meeting and/or mailed notices, but the notices could go to adjacent
property owners instead of those within 350 feet of the subject property, and that the city
could choose to no longer require advertising the hearing in the public notices section of
the city official newspaper. Morrison also noted that staff will need to check whether the
city charter contains any language related to variances.
Mr. Morrison noted that as a policy, the city also notifies the ward council person and the
neighborhood president of applications. The city also posts a “planning application
received” sign on the property directing people to the city’s webpage for additional
information. These steps are not in the zoning ordinance, and staff is not asking that they be
added.
Mr. Weber noted that the act of posting the notice in the paper is no longer relevant today,
and he has no problem removing that requirement. He also suggested that making this
change to focus the scope of who is notified of the public hearing to the people that will be
impacted, rather than the CUP based requirement of all properties within 350 feet, can
demonstrate that the city is interested in tailoring the requirement to fit the need and help
increase people’s trust in the government’s policies. The public hearing can create a
situation where more people than necessary are notified to come to a meeting for an issue
that doesn’t really impact them. This situation can set people up for inflated expectations
and frustration. The commissioners discussed this and agreed.
Ms. Strain asked for clarification to make sure that adjacent also includes those properties
across the alley, across the street, and kitty-corner to the subject property; could also
include two adjacent properties on each side of the subject property. Morrison concurred
that it would include those properties.
Commissioners also discussed the mailed notice that goes out 10 days prior to the public
hearing, and the consensus was to keep this practice.
4
Unofficial Minutes
Planning commission study session
Oct. 8, 2025
Mr. Miller specified that the variance would still be part of the public hearing conducted by
the planning commission when combined with conditional use permit applications.
The commissioners agreed to recommend adjusting the variance process conducted by the
BOZA as noted above.
Screening
Mr. Miller reviewed the screening regulations noting the following:
1. Screening regulations will become a separate section outside of the landscaping
section.
2. Existing screening standards for parking lots are being evaluated.
3. The Design Guidelines for the South Side of Excelsior Blvd is being used as a
resource.
He asked the commissioners when and where screening should be required. An example
was given whether screening should be required primarily when new development is
proposed adjacent to N-1/N-2 districts, or should it be required more broadly. He also
explained that 1-unit and 2-unit dwellings are currently exempted from the screening
requirement. With the zoning code’s increased focus on missing middle housing options, he
asked whether it might be appropriate to exempt additional housing types. If townhouses
or apartments are not located adjacent to N-1/N-2 districts, should they be required to have
screening?
Mr. Morrison noted that screening, including fencing, is required along every parking lot
located within 30 feet of a neighborhood zoned property. This includes between multi-unit
buildings. This gives the appearance of a very partitioned neighborhood. Mr. Morrison
asked whether a prevalence of fencing is desirable or neighborhoods with a more open
appearance. Mr. Morrison stated that screening between parking lots and N-1 and N-2
districts could still be preserved since parking lots are not a prevalent part of the character
of those neighborhoods. He inquired whether it would be desirable to reduce or remove
the fencing requirement in other districts. The code could still require landscaping along
parking lots to facilitate some screening and environmental benefits. There is the potential
to be less prescriptive with the screening requirement, e.g. alternative methods to fencing.
Commissioners discussed the screening requirements, the safety benefits of fencing, and
the South side of Excelsior Blvd Plan’s screening requirements. They recommended keeping
the screening requirements shown in this plan and gave direction to reduce the fencing
requirements in other districts, with the exception of keeping the fencing requirements
when adjacent to the N-1 and N-2 districts. They are open to reducing screening
requirements for residential uses, which will reduce the “othering” of medium and high
density housing types.
Commissioners discussed people’s increasing concerns related to safety. Screening can be
seen as a security measure, not just as a way to address visual, noise, light issues. Security
5
Unofficial Minutes
Planning commission study session
Oct. 8, 2025
companies are changing their operations as people are become concerned about intrusions
onto their property, e.g. fencing may be seen as a protective barrier.
Potential thresholds for CUP/planning commission review
Mr. Miller discussed the proposed uses table as it pertains to the manner in which a use is
approved, administrative vs. conditional use. He noted that the table identifies the manner
of approval for each use. He also noted that a CUP review could be triggered by a proposed
building height or density as specified in the intensity classification table which is currently
used primarily in the C-1 neighborhood commercial district. Alternatively, or in addition to
that, a CUP could be triggered by bonuses that allow more height and/or density than is
allowed by the district.
He asked the commission if they had any concerns about how any uses are approved in the
proposed uses table; if the commission had any concerns about how the height and/or
density is reviewed. He also asked if the intensity class table is needed in the updated code.
Mr. Miller reviewed tables showing uses and showing how height and density compare
across all business and neighborhood districts. He also reviewed the density bonus option
currently found in the MX-1 district, and the intensity class measures table currently found
in the zoning ordinance.
Commissioners appreciated how the height maximums were the same for certain districts
that are typically located next to each other. For example the height maximum of the N-1
and N-2 districts were the same/similar for the proposed MU-1 district. It was noted that
while the height is the same, the MU-1 building is required to be located further away from
the N-1 and N-2 districts to help reduce the perceived or potential impact. The
commissioners noted that a public hearing can be misleading giving people the appearance
that they have the ability to deny a project that meets code. When they learn they do not,
then they leave the meeting discouraged and disillusioned with the government process.
Commissioners are comfortable with administrative approval of projects that meet the
district requirements. They would, however, require a CUP for any development that
requests bonuses (height or density), uses where more policy direction is needed, or where
alignment with the comprehensive plan is needed.
Mr. Miller reviewed the community engagement proposed for the rest of the year and the
next steps for the process.
2. Adjournment - 8:05 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison John Flanagan, chair member
6
Planning commission
October 15, 2025
6:00 p.m.
Planning commission
Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha (arrived 6:02 p.m.), Matt Eckholm,
Sylvie Hyman, Tom Weber, John Flanagan, Tess Machalek
Members absent: Sarah Strain
Staff present: Laura Chamberlain
Guests: Betsy Michels, Project Manager, Trellis Co.
Andy Swartz, Architect, Blumenthal Architecture Inc.
1. Call to order – roll call.
2. Approval of minutes – Aug. 20, 2025, and Sept. 3, 2025.
Commissioner Hyman requested that her written comments submitted for the Sept. 3, 2025
meeting be included in the minutes. It was moved by Commissioner Eckholm, seconded by
Commissioner Weber, to approve the Aug. 20 and Sept. 3, 2025, minutes with corrections as
noted. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Hearings.
3a. Title: Bickham court planned unit development amendment
Location: 2753, 2759, 2760, and 2768 Louisiana Court
Applicant: Trellis Co.
Case No: 25-02-PUD
Ms. Chamberlain presented the report.
Ms. Chamberlain stated that Trellis Co. has applied for a planned unit development (PUD)
amendment for the Bickham Court apartments on Louisiana Court. The request is to allow a
new one-story building to provide resident services and community amenity space at the
Bickham Court apartment complex. The new building is proposed to have an area of 2,640
square feet and will be located in the northwest corner of the Bickham Court apartment
complex. The project would also allow an office in one of the existing buildings to return to
residential use. The proposed project requires an amendment to an existing PUD on the
property, which was approved via Resolution No. 01-038, subject to conditions recommended
by staff.
Commissioner Divecha asked staff for a definition of proof of parking. Ms. Chamberlain stated
that proof of parking refers to space that could be for parking, but is not necessarily required to
be built at that time.
7
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Oct. 15, 2025
Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing.
There were no speakers from the public.
Ms. Michels presented Trellis Corporation and their mission related to affordable housing. Ms.
Michels stated that Trellis Corporation helped to raise funds to begin the development project
to stabilize the garage building, replace the HVAC and bathrooms, as well as build a community
building.
Commissioner Beneke asked if Trellis is associated with Project for Pride in Living. Ms. Michels
stated Trellis is not associated, but stated there may have been a tie between the previous
owner of Trellis and Project for Pride in Living.
Commissioner Weber asked when this building was under Perspectives, was it also
considered supportive housing. Ms. Michels stated yes, Perspectives did provide services for
the residents on site, and added that the conversion of the building will create 2 new units.
Commissioner Weber thanked Ms. Michels and noted it was a difficult day in St. Louis Park
when Perspectives closed down, adding this was a small step to saving these resources in the
city, and he thanked Trellis for their work.
Commissioner Hyman stated that the garages on the hill above are collapsing and that this will
be addressed during the conversion. Ms. Michels stated yes and noted Trellis has identified a
couple of solutions, such as backup storage units.
Chair Flanagan closed the public hearing.
Chair Flanagan and Commissioners Divecha and Machalek commented that they are all
supportive of this project.
It was moved by Commissioner Weber, seconded by Commissioner Divecha, to approve the PUD
amendment at Bickham Court located at 2753, 2759, 2760, and 2768 Louisiana Court, via
Resolution No. 01-038, subject to conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. Other Business – none.
5. Communications.
Ms. Chamberlain noted the following future scheduled meeting and event dates:
Nov. 5, 2025 – planning commission study session
Nov. 10, 2025 – Chair Flanagan and Ms. Chamberlain will present the Planning
Commission workplan to the city council.
Nov. 19, 2025 - planning commission regular meeting
Dec. 3, 2025 - planning commission study session
8
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Oct. 15, 2025
Jan. 7, 2026 - planning commission regular meeting
6. Adjournment – 6:21 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison John Flanagan, chair member
9
10
Planning commission
November 5, 2025
6:00 p.m.
Planning commission
Study Session
Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Sarah Strain,
Tom Weber, John Flanagan, Tess Machalek
Members absent: none
Staff present: Laura Chamberlain
1. Planning Commission and BOZA 2026 work plan
Ms. Chamberlain presented the report.
Ms. Chamberlain stated that she and Chair Flanagan will present the work plan to the city
council in 2025, and what is anticipated for 2026. Ms. Chamberlain stated that a more
formal motion will be voted on by the planning commission early next year, and then it will
go to the city council for final approval.
Ms. Chamberlain showed the 2026 work plan presentation that will be given to the city
council on Monday. Ms. Chamberlain noted that tonight’s discussion will allow the
commissioners to provide feedback related to the 2026 work plan before the presentation
to the city council.
Commissioner Hyman asked if there is an anticipated completion date for the Terasă
project. Ms. Chamberlain stated they have started, but do not have their building permits
yet, and have also run into issues with financing. Ms. Chamberlain added that the developer
had applied for an amendment for the PUD to make up for the funding gap, but that has
been withdrawn. Ms. Chamberlain added that construction will take about 1.5 years once
they do get started.
Commissioner Weber asked for more exclamation marks in the slide show. Commissioner
Divecha noted the numbers should also be added to the slides related to zoning phase 1.
Youth Commissioner Machalek asked that some of the words on slides be enlarged for
easier readability.
Commissioner Weber asked if the zoning code phase 1 should be the first thing discussed
with the council. Commissioner Eckholm stated he agreed and added that the zoning code
update and Arrive and Thrive are the big accomplishments to focus on.
Additional items to be considered for the 2050 comprehensive plan:
Commissioner Eckholm stated that streamlining the approval process should be made
easier so more people can take advantage of putting smaller houses in place within the city. 11
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Nov. 5, 2025
Chair Flanagan stated that with the light rail coming to the city and asked how to get the
whole city involved and moving around without using vehicles.
Commissioner Strain added she would like more inclusion on the topic of technology and
how to create space for physical in-person community with technological changes.
Commissioner Divecha added what the city can do to support more small businesses
through planning and having more walkable and commercial zones.
Commissioner Eckholm added he would like to see the city push for single-stairwell
construction / building codes for apartment buildings.
Commissioner Divecha stated she would like St. Louis Park Rep. Larry Kraft to come to a
planning commission meeting to discuss state regulations and let him know the city’s
priorities related to planning.
Commissioner Hyman asked about looking at how the comp plan can make living in St. Louis
Park more affordable, how the city uses land, influences, and where money goes, as well as
taxes and the transportation system.
Commissioner Divecha added she would also like the planning commission to meet with the
Environmental and Sustainability Commission (ESC) in 2026 and noted she would like to
have planning commissioners help table at ESC events in order to assist with community
engagement.
Commissioner Eckholm stated he would like information on when Hennepin County is
holding an open house on a project related to St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Beneke added he would like to see the city buy property and temporarily
hold it for a non-profit to purchase and wondered if that would assist with affordability.
Ms. Chamberlain stated the EDA has purchased strategic properties as they become
available, such as the Beltline and Nash Frame sites. She stated there is an upcoming
discussion with the city council related to this and added she will follow up with the
planning commission on this.
Ms. Chamberlain stated the Nov. 19 Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled, and
the Dec. 3 meeting is a study session on the zoning code update.
2. Adjournment – 6:56 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison John Flanagan, chair member
12
Planning commission
December 3, 2025
6:00 p.m.
Planning commission
Study Session
Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Sylvie Hyman, Sarah Strain,
Tom Weber (arrived 6:05), John Flanagan
Members absent: Matt Eckholm, Tess Machalek
Staff in attendance: Gary Morrison, Laura Chamberlain
1. Zoning code update – phase 2
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Mr. Morrison summarized the Nov. 10, 2025, city council study session meeting and
their reaction to the draft of the zoning code. Mr. Morrison also noted updates on the
following for discussion:
Mixed-use form-based standards. The existing MX-1 and MX-2 districts have some
elements of form-based standards. This table illustrates how these standards are
proposed to be carried forward into the MU districts.
Lot size and density standards table. This table illustrates how the existing lot size
and density standards will be carried forward into the proposed districts. There are
minimal changes to the lot width and area. This table establishes the threshold for
density bonuses, triggering a CUP for the MU-2, MU-3, and B-1 districts.
Site & building dimension standards table. Minimal changes to existing standards.
Maintain additional distance requirements when adjacent to N districts.
Building height limits table. This table establishes how many stories can be built
without height bonuses, which require a CUP. It also establishes a minimum of two
stories in the MU-2 and the MU-3 districts.
Land use tables (principal and accessory uses). These tables carry existing uses
forward to the new districts. It also establishes the manner of review, administrative
or conditional use permit (planning commission/city council review). There have
been some updates. When reviewing this table, consider which uses you do or do
not want in each district, and how they are reviewed/approved.
Ms. Chamberlain stated the city council appreciates the planning commission’s input on uses,
so staff is working on facilitating this where appropriate.
13
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Dec. 3, 2025
Commissioner Hyman asked if conditions are in the ordinance or if they are set by the planning
commission. Mr. Morrison stated that it can be both. Standard conditions typical of the use will
be in the ordinance, but the planning commission can add conditions specific to a particular
application as long as it is pertinent to the application and addresses a specific concern. He
added that a site plan is typically added as a condition to the CUP.
Commissioner Weber stated the commission has the authority to amend and recommend
additional conditions, and then the city council can decide if they want to include this in an
approval. Mr. Morrison added that the conditions do need to be relevant to a project,
however.
Commissioner Strain asked for an explanation of primary vs. secondary street frontage. Mr.
Morrison stated that this refers to two different street types – primary street relates to the
volume of traffic or emphasizes pedestrian uses and storefronts.
Commissioner Strain asked about non-residential uses on the ground floor and asked if this is a
true use vs. a façade. Mr. Morrison stated that non-residential uses refers to uses that are not
dwellings.
Chair Flanagan asked about the proposed building setback. Mr. Morrison noted the building
setbacks from the front and rear include the height at 3 stories, but if the height is 4-5 stories,
then those additional stories are setback further.
Commissioner Hyman asked about building entrance heights. Mr. Morrison stated yes, this is
to minimize a terrace effect and encourage the public sidewalk to be at the same grade as the
storefronts.
Mr. Morrison asked the commission about industrial properties that have been in the city for
many years. Commissioner Strain stated that the city can remove any lot width and area
standards for industrial districts since standards are not included in any other district.
Commissioner Divecha noted the point would be to not allow for subdivision of an industrial
lot. Mr. Morrison stated that is correct, adding that there are minimum lot widths in residential
areas to prevent flag lots where one lot is behind another.
Commissioner Hyman asked if any developments were getting close to the height maximums.
Mr. Morrison stated the maximums are always pushed within the code. He added that staff will
propose bonuses for developers that include both inclusionary housing and that meet the
green policy, not either or.
Commissioner Hyman asked if a CUP could be changed for residential or commercial use to be
permitted with standards and with conditions attached to it. She added that then there would
be no need for a public hearing. Mr. Morrison stated, however, that some council members
expressed concern about getting too far away from using the CUP process.
14
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Dec. 3, 2025
Chair Flanagan asked in what ways the conditions of the CUP deviate from the standards. Mr.
Morrison stated that under today’s code, there is no density bonus option; the developer has to
meet the standards.
Mr. Morrison noted that the Designed Outdoor Recreational Area (DORA) is included for multi-
family housing standards only.
Commissioner Hyman stated that if the city required 2 stories minimum and a building in a
district wants to expand, but not add a story, would the city tell them that is not allowable. Mr.
Morrison stated as a non-conformity, we cannot intensify the use or make it bigger.
Commissioner Hyman stated that this seems counterproductive.
Commissioner Hyman stated she does not want to require a 2-story minimum.
Commissioner Weber pointed out 3 stories or 30 feet maximum and asked what the meaning is
of having a building height maximum of more than 75 feet, and could this allow for a 700-foot
height building. Commissioner Weber noted that some of the language may need to be
adjusted.
Mr. Morrison stated the intent is to go up to 75 feet for a maximum, and the bonuses would be
from 75-150 feet.
Commissioner Hyman stated a concern is the need for corner grocery stores in neighborhoods.
Mr. Morrison stated that hopefully the nodes will meet the need to bring some commercial to
residential areas.
The commissioners discussed drive-through restaurants. Mr. Morrison stated that drive-
throughs are allowed in C2 and C1, and the change is that they are listed as principal uses in C1,
and now they will be changed to accessory uses in the MU districts.
Commissioner Divecha asked about in-vehicle sales and asked if the commissioners have any
interest in not including drive-through in accessory use. Mr. Morrison stated that in-vehicle
sales are a true drive-through and noted that prohibiting them could be an issue, as there are
other uses for drive-throughs, such as at banks.
Commissioner Divecha stated she understands that this convenience is used for banks and
pharmacies but would prefer not to have them on Excelsior Avenue.
Commissioner Strain agreed with Commissioner Divecha for the MU-1 districts.
Commissioner Weber asked if cities can ban certain types of uses. Ms. Chamberlain stated
there are certain uses protected by state statute or under the 1st amendment, and outside of
those, the city is not obligated to allow other uses.
15
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Dec. 3, 2025
Commissioner Beneke asked if there is a limit on cannabis and liquor stores. Mr. Morrison
stated there is a limit on cannabis and a limit on pawn shops, which is handled through
licensing, and is unrelated to zoning.
Chair Flanagan stated he is in favor of staff reevaluating the MU-1 district drive-throughs.
Commissioner Hyman added that transit-oriented development is supposed to be non-car
development, noting she would be interested in staff reviewing this also.
Commissioner Divecha asked if one of the conditions on mixed-use could be that there is no
drive-through in the MU-1 district. Ms. Chamberlain stated that staff will look closer at the
conditions and bring this back to the planning commission.
Commissioner Weber stated he would prefer to address residential above commercial with
drive-throughs, and the problem of breathing in car fumes.
Commissioner Divecha asked about shopping centers and big box stores. Mr. Morrison stated
that staff is currently working on refining the shopping center definition. Currently they can be
defined as buildings with at least two tenants, or in a more obvious manner that resembles
Shoppes at Knollwood, Texa-Tonka mall, and Miracle Mile.
Commissioner Strain added that shopping centers are a combination of square footage and
number of users.
Commissioner Divecha noted she would prefer smaller shopping centers.
Commissioner Weber added that his vision is that retail should default to a more mixed-use
going forward, and shopping centers should be allowed but not encouraged. Mr. Morrison
added that a definition could indicate that the shopping center is more car oriented.
Commissioner Weber asked about restaurants in a park, similar to the one at Lake Harriet in
Minneapolis, and if that could be done in St. Louis Park. He added that it is not allowed now,
but asked if this could be discussed.
Mr. Morrison stated there was a conversation about having a coffee/sandwich shop in a park
bordering a regional trail, but it was not approved due to zoning, and it also would need to be
opened up to bids, so the city decided against that at the time.
Commissioner Hyman noted that businesses are not oriented to the trails, and it would be great
to be able to see these businesses more oriented toward the trail.
Commissioner Beneke asked about having more restaurants on Excelsior Blvd. and about
outdoor patios and enclosures. Mr. Morrison stated that patios are allowed, and they can be
enclosed for up to six months per calendar year.
16
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Dec. 3, 2025
Commissioner Divecha asked why microbreweries are not allowed in B1, but taprooms are. Mr.
Morrison stated he has the same question. Ms. Chamberlain stated that there does need to be
a taproom in some districts, and a microbrewery is in the production area, so this could be a
reason.
Commissioner Divecha asked about medical, optical, and dental laboratories not being allowed
in MU-1. Mr. Morrison stated this pertains to manufacturing and research areas not medical
offices.
Commissioner Hyman noted parking ramps as a principal use, and asked if this is across the
board, and if parking ramps will be allowed in all areas. Commissioner Hyman added that
parking ramps should not be allowed as a primary use. Ms. Chamberlain stated that the primary
use of the ramp would only be for parking, adding that standards can be built around this, and
it can be reevaluated.
Mr. Morrison stated that if parking requirements are reduced, the city sets itself up for metered
parking and paying for parking ramps. Ms. Chamberlain added that if the Walker Lake district is
used as a testing ground where no parking areas are allowed, there are more on-street and off-
street parking opportunities, which would be a district parking approach.
Commissioner Weber stated that, when the planning commission makes a recommendation,
there could be a letter written to the city council stating that the planning commission has
supports the recommendation but also encourages the council to consider steps to eliminate
parking minimum requirements. Mr. Morrison stated this could also be included as a motion in
the meeting minutes.
Ms. Chamberlain stated that within the planning commission work plan that is approved by the
city council, the comp plan will be the major item, but other items can also be added to the
work plan, and then the parking topic could be revisited at that time.
Commissioner Hyman asked if the planning commission recommendations could include
options as to how to handle parking minimums for them to decide. Mr. Morrison stated in
general, the city council would not want options; they would want a specific recommendation
from the planning commission.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff will conduct open houses for the public and prepare a draft of
phase 2 of the zoning code for review by the planning commission in February.
Mr. Morrison stated that commissioner Hyman submitted a letter to the commission to review
tonight (attached), and she would like to discuss parking minimum requirements.
Commissioner Hyman summarized her desire to discuss removing parking minimums and asked
for comments from the commission.
Commissioner Divecha stated that parking has not been discussed long enough by the planning
commission, and she would prefer an additional study session to discuss parking further.
17
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Dec. 3, 2025
Commissioner Hyman added that data and information on how we arrived at the current
parking requirements would be helpful as a starting point for discussion.
Ms. Chamberlain stated that the work plan will need to be voted on at one of the January
planning commission meetings. She added that a study session can also be added to the
January meeting.
Chair Flanagan added that residential parking should also be discussed. Commissioner Divecha
stated that residential parking was discussed previously by the planning commission during
phase 1.
Mr. Morrison stated that parking has not been static for a long time; there have been
adjustments over time as needs have changed.
Ms. Chamberlain stated that a full scope of parking can be further discussed at a study session
in January.
Future scheduled meeting/event dates:
January 7, 2026 – planning commission meeting
January 21, 2026 – planning commission meeting
February 4, 2026 – planning commission meeting
February 25, 2026 – planning commission meeting
2. Adjournment – 8:19 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison John Flanagan, chair member
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Planning commission: Regular meeting
Meeting date: January 7, 2026
Agenda item: 3.a
3.a Park Community Church conditional use permit
Executive summary
Location: 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
Case number: 25-08-CUP
Applicant: Park Community Church
Owner: Park Community Church
Review deadline: 60 days: February 9, 2026 120 days: April 10, 2026
Recommended
motion:
Chair to open public hearing, take testimony, and close public hearing.
Motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for 6805
Minnetonka Blvd. to allow a religious institution and a reduction of 13
parking spaces.
Summary of requests:
Park Community Church applied for a conditional use permit to renovate the interior of the
sanctuary and community spaces at Park Community Church, expand the sanctuary by
approximately 500 square feet on the south side of the building, and remove existing pavement
on the north and west sides of the building and replace those areas with green space. The
purpose of the project is to provide more space for the existing congregation in the sanctuary
and improve accessibility, comfort and functionality without altering the building’s character.
The zoning code requires a conditional use permit for religious institutions in the N-2 zoning
district. Although the church’s establishment predates this code requirement, the proposed site
work requires the church to come into compliance with city code.
The zoning code allows city council to revise parking requirements as part of a conditional use
permit application. The applicant requests the city council revise the parking requirement
downward by 13 parking spaces given excess street parking available adjacent to Lenox
Community Center that can be used to accommodate additional parking needs. Lenox
Community Center provides 115 off-street parking spaces, which is nearly double the number
of parking spaces required for the use. Staff do not anticipate adverse impacts on the adjacent
property owners resulting from the parking reduction or the use of street parking along the
east side of Hampshire Avenue South.
Supporting documents: Site survey, site plan, landscape plan, building elevations
Prepared by: Katelyn Champoux, associate planner
Reviewed by: Laura Chamberlain, senior planner
29
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
Discussion
Site information:
Park Community Church is located at 6805 Minnetonka Blvd. in the Lenox neighborhood. The
church was established in 1946 as St. Louis Park Evangelical Free Church, but the church
building was not constructed until 1948. The property spans one city block bounded by
Minnetonka Boulevard. to the north, Idaho Avenue South to the west, and Hampshire Avenue
South to the east. The property contains the 29,000 square foot church and a 1,600 square foot
parish house in the northwest corner. The project does not propose changes to the existing
parish house.
Site area (acres) 1.5 acres
Building area (sq ft) 28,892 square feet
Use Religious institution
2040 Future Land Use CIV – Civic
Zoning N-2
Surrounding land uses North: Single-unit dwellings
East: Community center
South: Single-unit dwellings
West: Single-unit dwellings
Background:
Park Community Church proposes to renovate the interior of the building, complete a minor
expansion to the existing sanctuary, and remove excess pavement along the north and west
sides of the building to accommodate additional green space. The purpose of the project is to
provide more space for the existing congregation in the sanctuary and improve accessibility,
30
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
comfort and functionality without altering the building’s character. The zoning code requires a
conditional use permit for religious institutions in the N-2 zoning district. Although the church’s
establishment predates this code requirement, the proposed site work requires the church to
come into compliance with city code.
Present considerations:
The applicant requests the city approve a conditional use permit for 6805 Minnetonka Blvd. to
allow a religious institution use and consider a reduction of required on-site parking.
Zoning analysis:
Below is a table summarizing the zoning requirements for this project. Further details on some
of the requirements are provided after the table.
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use Religious institution Religious institution Yes
Height 40 feet (max) 37.5 feet Yes
Building
Materials
Minimum of 60% class 1; No more than
10% class 3 materials
North: Class 1 – 90%, Class 3 – 4%
South: Class 1 – 64%, Class 3 – 1%
West: Class 1 – 92%, Class 3 – 1%
East: Class 1 – 91%, Class 3 – 1%
Yes
Off-Street Parking 98 parking spaces See parking analysis below. Yes
EV charging
infrastructure
EV chargers: 3 parking spaces
Conduit for future chargers: 29 parking
spaces
EV chargers: 4 parking spaces
Conduit for future chargers: 28 parking
spaces (plus the extra EV charging
space)
Yes
Bicycle parking 6 bicycle parking spaces 12 bicycle parking spaces Yes
Setbacks Front: 25 feet
Side: 9 feet or 20 feet when adjacent to
a property zoned N-1
Rear: 25 feet
Front: 34 feet
Side: 35 feet, 91 feet
Rear: 80 feet
Yes
Landscaping Trees: 30
Shrubs: 177
Trees: 37 trees (7 existing, 30 new)
Shrubs: 180 (8 existing, 172 new)
Yes
Impervious
surface coverage
80% (max) 57% Yes
Off-street parking.
Parking requirement. The proposed project meets the parking requirement for Park Community
Church with the proposed proof of parking and parking reduction. The zoning code requires
religious institutions to provide one parking space per three seats. For Park Community Church,
this would apply to the capacity of its sanctuary. The floor plan shows 344 seats in the
31
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
sanctuary, which would require 115 parking spaces. The church qualifies for a 15% transit
reduction given its proximity to high-frequency bus service at the intersection of Minnetonka
Boulevard and Hampshire Avenue South. This reduces the requirement to 98 parking spaces.
The proposed site plan indicates the provision of 58 parking spaces in the parking lot, two (2)
parking spaces in the parish house driveway, and 13 parking spaces on the street adjacent to
the property. The existing church parking lot has 67 parking spaces.
Proof of parking. Park Community Church proposes using the proof of parking ordinance in the
zoning code to meet a portion of the remaining parking requirement. Proof of parking
demonstrates that a property can accommodate the required parking while deferring
construction of this additional parking until the zoning administrator or property owner
determines necessary. The applicant provided a site plan showing 12 additional proof of
parking spaces for a total of 85 parking spaces for the site.
Request for reduction. The zoning code allows city council to revise parking requirements as
part of a conditional use permit application. The applicant requests the city council revise the
parking requirement downward by 13 parking spaces given excess parking available adjacent to
Lenox Community Center that can be used to accommodate additional parking needs. Lenox
Community Center provides 115 off-street parking spaces, which is nearly double the number
of parking spaces required for the use. Given the surplus of off-street parking, staff find it
appropriate to assume that Lenox Community Center may not need adjacent street parking to
accommodate its parking demand.
Staff recommend reducing the parking requirement by 13 parking spaces under the assumption
that the street parking available along the east side of Hampshire Avenue South adjacent to
Lenox Community Center may accommodate this need. Park Community Church shared that
32
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
these spaces are typically used by
church patrons, and it anticipates this
will continue after completion of the
proposed project. Staff do not
anticipate adverse impacts on the
adjacent property owners resulting
from the parking reduction or the use of
street parking along the east side of
Hampshire Avenue South.
Access. The project proposes to reduce
the number of access points to the site
from seven to four. The project would
remove the two access points to
Minnetonka Boulevard on the north
side of the site and remove one of the
driveways on Hampshire Avenue South.
After completion of the project, church
patrons may access the site via the driveways off Idaho Avenue South and Hampshire Avenue
South or the alley access off Idaho Avenue South.
Building materials. The zoning ordinance requires at least 60% class 1 materials, which include
materials such as glass and brick, and allows for up to 10% class 3 materials. Although the
project does not propose major external changes to the building, the existing building uses less
than 5% of class 3 materials on each façade.
Height. The height of the building is 37.5 feet. This will not change with the proposed project.
The building height meets the zoning code requirement of a maximum of 40 feet.
Yards. As noted in the table above, the project complies with all minimum yard requirements
for the building.
Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). The project proposes electric vehicle charging for four
parking spaces including one ADA parking space. It also proposes providing conduit for future
EV chargers for 28 parking spaces. This meets the zoning code requirement.
Bicycle parking. The zoning code requires six bicycle parking spaces on the site. The proposed
project will provide 12 bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the zoning code requirement.
Landscaping. The property requires 30 trees and 177 shrubs. There are seven (7) existing trees
on site that will be preserved. The applicant will plant 30 new trees for a total of 37 trees on the
site. The applicant will plant 172 new shrubs on site to add to eight (8) existing shrubs for a
total of 180 shrubs. This meets the landscaping requirement for the property.
Conditional use permit analysis:
Staff finds the application meets the following general requirements for conditional use permits
listed in city code section 36-33(b):
33
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
1. Consistency with plans. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals,
objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and
implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The proposed project aligns with
the city’s strategic priority of environmental stewardship by reducing the impervious
surface coverage on the site by nearly 11% and adding 30 trees and other landscaping to
the site.
2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
community. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent
streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. Staff do not
anticipate the proposed project will have adverse impacts on the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions adjacent to the site.
3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of city
code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed use
meets the conditions required for religious institutions located in the N-2 zoning district.
4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The proposal is consistent with sewer and water service capacity.
5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil
engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the
use by the city council. The site design meets these requirements.
6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the city’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and
water plans. The utilities have capacity for the proposed use.
Staff find the project meets all general CUP requirements and the specific requirements for
religious institutions in the N-2 zoning district.
Next steps: The CUP application is tentatively scheduled for city council consideration on
Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026.
Public outreach: A public hearing notice was posted in the Sun Sailor and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the site. The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting at Park
Community Church on Dec. 3, 2025. One resident attended the neighborhood meeting. He
shared his support for the project along with general concerns about people parking on the
street in front of his house and private sidewalk leading to the street.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the following:
34
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
Motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for 6805 Minnetonka Blvd. to allow
a religious institution and the reduction of required parking by 13 spaces, with the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of
the zoning ordinance, approved official exhibits and city code.
2. Construction and staging information will be provided to staff for review and approval
before building permits are issued.
3. All new utility service structures shall be buried.
4. Prior to installation of any new signs, the applicant shall submit the necessary sign
permits and a site sign plan that shows all existing and proposed signs. No signs will be
permitted in public right-of-way.
5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utility and city representatives.
b. All necessary permits shall be obtained.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of
credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times
the estimated costs for landscaping.
7. 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 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Friday, and between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The city shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public
street.
e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the city
engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to
ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
f. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at
least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points
shall be locked during non-working hours.
g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding
neighborhood service.
8. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the private
utilities, site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the official
exhibits.
9. Upon city approval of and acceptance of private site improvements, the developer shall
provide a one-year warranty in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit for 25% of
the final construction costs of the improvements.
10. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative
fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
11. The proof of parking spaces shall be constructed when determined necessary by the
zoning administrator or at such a time as the property owner determines necessary.
35
Regular meeting of January 7, 2026 (Item No. 3.a)
Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit - 6805 Minnetonka Blvd.
Any landscaping removed to construct the parking spaces shall be relocated on site to
remain compliant with city code.
12. The conditional use permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the use, building or
structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed or abandoned.
13. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
36
6"
W
M
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
6"
W
M
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
9" VCP
9" VCP (Per Rec.)
9" VCP (Per Rec.)
12" WM (Per Rec.)
12" WM (Per Rec.)
16
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
12
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
16
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
12
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
ALLEY
(A Public R/W)
9"
V
C
P
N89°18'32"E 267.90
S0
1
°
0
8
'
5
7
"
E
2
3
0
.
9
8
S89°13'28"W 134.18
S01°05'32"E
22.00
S89°13'27"W 134.20
N0
1
°
0
2
'
0
6
"
W
2
5
3
.
3
7
ID
A
H
O
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
(A Public R/W)
HA
M
P
S
H
I
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
Existing House
Existing
Garage
Existing
Garage
2 Story Lap Sided House
Foundation Area =
1,678 +/- Sq. Ft.
Existing House
2 Story Brick Sided Church with Lookout Basement
Foundation Area = 13,411+/- Sq. Ft.
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Concrete Sidewalk
Concrete Sidewalk
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Concrete Walkway
Concrete Walkway
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Driveway
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Concrete Steps
Concrete Steps
W/ Railing
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Concrete Walkway
Concrete Step
W/ Railing
Concrete
Concrete
Access
Access
Access
Access
Access
Truncated Dome
Truncated Domes
Bike Rack
Column
Column
Column
Overhang
Overhang
Bituminous Parking Lot
Bituminous Parking Lot
Bituminous Parking Lot
Bituminous Drive
De
c
k
Wood Step
12
24
9
9
3
6
2
2
Wood Fence
[A] Wood Fence
Crosses Property Line
Wood Fence
Keystone
Retaining Wall
Monument
Sign
Wood Fence
[B] Bituminous Parking Lot
Crosses Property Line
Rock Pile
88
.
7
17.9
10
.
7
20.8
6.
1
24.5 2.
5
34.0
2.
4
24.4
35
.
8
19.2
39
.
7
1.0
9.
5
18.3
8.
7
61.8
22
.
0
20.0
11
.
6
17.8
3
1
.
2
21.2
19
.
9
7.1
13
.
6
25.8
26
.
3
40.2
1.3
5.
5
1.4
49
.
8
4.
4
Found 1/2 Inch
Open Iron Pipe
Found 1/2 Inch
Open Iron Pipe
PID: 1711721120215
Address: 6805 Minnetonka Boulevard
PID: 1711721120002
Address: 3029 Idaho Avenue South
Owner: Margaret Peltier
PID: 1711721120016
Address: 3024 Hampshire Avenue South
Owner: Poppenhagen Housing Division
Sa
n
.
M
a
i
n
EXCEPTION
AL
L
E
Y
Wat. Serv.
(Per Rec.)
Concrete Drive
Wat. Serv. (Per Rec.)
The N Line of the S 2 Feet
of Lot 28, Block 5, "Lenox"
The N Line of the S 20 Feet
of Lot 10, Block 5, "Lenox"
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED
All of Lots 3, 4, 6, 7 and 29, Block 5, "Lenox," according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Lot 28,
Block 5, "Lenox", except the South 2 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
together with that part of the vacated alleys adjacent to said lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 28 and 29.
Abstract Property
AND
All of Lots 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9, and that part of Lot 10 lying North of the South 20.0 feet thereof, "Lenox", according to the
plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County, together with that
part of the vacated alleys adjacent to said lots 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 10.
Torrens Property
GENERAL SURVEY NOTES
1.Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (1986 Adjustment).
2.Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top nut of the fire hydrant located in the
southeast quadrant at the intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and Idaho Avenue South, as shown hereon.
Elevation = 929.46.
3.We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence
from the following sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by client, markings by utility
companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground
utilities for this site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately,
completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that
excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all
the utilities located on the subject property.
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY NOTES
(numbered per Table A)
1.Monuments placed and/or found at all major corners of the boundary of the surveyed property as shown hereon.
2.Site Address: 6805 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426.
3.This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0353F, effective date of November 4, 2016.
4.The gross land area is 64,936 +/- square feet or 1.491 +/- acres.
7.(a) Exterior dimensions of buildings at ground level as shown hereon.
(b)(1) Square footage of exterior footprint of buildings at ground level as shown hereon.
8.Substantial features observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork as shown hereon. Please note that seasonal
conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all site features located on the subject property.
9.The number of striped parking stalls on this site are as follows: 58 Regular + 9 Handicap = 67 Total Parking Stalls.
13.The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtained from
the Hennepin County Interactive Property Map.
SURVEY REPORT
1.This map and report was prepared without the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance. The property description
was obtained from county tax records and may not be the description of record. There may be easements or other
matters of record we are unaware of and thus not shown hereon.
2.Conflicts such as (but not limited to): encroachments, protrusions, access, occupation, and easements and/or
servitudes:
[A].Wood fence crosses the south line of the subject property, as shown hereon.
[B].Bituminous parking lot crosses the south line of the subject property, as shown hereon.
ALTA CERTIFICATION
To: St Louis Park Evang Free Church:
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum
Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and
includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7(a), 7(b)(1), 8, 9, and 13 of Table A thereof.
The fieldwork was completed on 10-2-2025.
Dated this 8th day of October, 2025.
________________________________________________________
Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565
rory@civilsitegroup.com
VICINITY MAP
68
0
5
M
i
n
n
e
t
o
n
k
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
St
.
L
o
u
i
s
P
a
r
k
,
H
e
n
n
e
p
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
5
5
4
2
6
76
7
N
o
r
t
h
E
u
s
t
i
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
9
0
,
S
t
.
P
a
u
l
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
t
o
a
5
5
1
1
4
Po
p
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
r
o
u
p
PR
O
J
E
C
T
PROJECT NO.: 25375.00
COPYRIGHT 2025 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c
REVISION SUMMARY
DATE DESCRIPTION
V1.0
ALTA/NSPS LAND
TITLE SURVEY
..
..
..
..
..
..
N
44565
RORY L. SYNSTELIEN
LICENSE NO.DATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY,
PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND
THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND
SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
10-8-2025N
CL
I
E
N
T
Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture
5000 Glenwood Avenue
Golden Valley, MN 55422
civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060
QA/QC
FIELD CREW
DRAWN BY
REVIEWED BY
UPDATED BY
MG/BS/TL
DS
CJ
.
OVERHEAD UTILITIES
GASMAIN
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
FIBER/COMM. LINE
ELECTRIC LINE (RECORD)
WATERMAIN
ELECTRIC LINE
GASMAIN (RECORD)
CHAINLINK FENCE LINE
Linetype & Symbol Legend
CONCRETE SURFACE
PAVER SURFACE
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE
SURFACE
IRON FENCE LINE
GUARDRAIL
WATERMAIN (RECORD)
SANITARY SEWER (RECORD)
STORM SEWER (RECORD)
FIBER/COMM. LINE (RECORD)
TELEPHONE LINE (RECORD)
TELEPHONE LINE
SIGN
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE
CABLE TV BOX
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
TELEPHONE BOX
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
GAS METER
ELECTRICAL METER
WATER MANHOLE
WATER VALVE
AIR CONDITIONER
BOLLARD
CATCH BASIN
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
GAS VALVE
FLAG POLE
HANDICAP SYMBOL
FOUND IRON MONUMENT
HYDRANT
CAST IRON MONUMENT
SET OR TO BE SET IRON MONUMENT
FLARED END SECTION
POWER POLE
UTILITY MANHOLE
GUY WIRE
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
ROOF DRAIN
SEWER CLEAN OUT
FIRE CONNECTION
WELL
UTILITY VAULT
POST INDICATOR VALVE
GAS MANHOLE
HAND HOLE
FIBER/COMM. MANHOLE
MAIL BOX
FUEL TANK
ELECTRICAL OUTLET
SB SOIL BORING
LIGHT POLE
ACCESS RESTRICTION
WOODEN FENCE LINE
SATELLITE DISH
BUSH/SHRUB
40102001020
SCALE IN FEET
㌷
6"
W
M
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
6"
W
M
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
9" VCP
9" VCP (Per Rec.)
12" WM (Per Rec.)
12" WM (Per Rec.)
16
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
12
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
16
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
12
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
ALLEY
(A Public R/W)
9"
V
C
P
N89°18'32"E 267.90
S0
1
°
0
8
'
5
7
"
E
2
3
0
.
9
8
S89°13'28"W 134.18
S01°05'32"E
22.00
S89°13'27"W 134.20
N0
1
°
0
2
'
0
6
"
W
2
5
3
.
3
7
ID
A
H
O
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
(A Public R/W)
HA
M
P
S
H
I
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H
(A
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
/
W
)
Existing
Garage
2 Story Lap Sided House
Foundation Area =
1,678 +/- Sq. Ft.
Existing House
2 Story Brick Sided Church with Lookout Basement
Foundation Area = 13,411+/- Sq. Ft.
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Concrete Sidewalk
Concrete Sidewalk
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Concrete
Driveway
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Concrete Steps
Concrete Steps
W/ Railing
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Concrete Step
W/ Railing
Concrete
Access
Truncated Dome
Truncated Domes
Column
Column
Column
Overhang
Overhang
De
c
k
Wood Step
Wood Fence
[A] Wood Fence
Crosses Property Line
Keystone
Retaining Wall
Monument
Sign
Wood Fence
[B] Bituminous Parking Lot
Crosses Property Line
Rock Pile
88
.
7
17.9
10
.
7
20.8
6.
1
24.5 2.
5
34.0
2.
4
24.4
35
.
8
19.2
39
.
7
1.0
9.
5
18.3
8.
7
61.8
22
.
0
20.0
11
.
6
17.8
3
1
.
2
21.2
19
.
9
7.1
13
.
6
25.8
26
.
3
40.2
1.3
5.
5
1.4
49
.
8
4.
4
Found 1/2 Inch
Open Iron Pipe
Found 1/2 Inch
Open Iron Pipe
PID: 1711721120215
Address: 6805 Minnetonka Boulevard
PID: 1711721120016
Address: 3024 Hampshire Avenue South
Owner: Poppenhagen Housing Division
Sa
n
.
M
a
i
n
EXCEPTION
AL
L
E
Y
Wat. Serv.
(Per Rec.)
Wat. Serv. (Per Rec.)
The N Line of the S 2 Feet
of Lot 28, Block 5, "Lenox"
The N Line of the S 20 Feet
of Lot 10, Block 5, "Lenox"
4. 14" DIM
HONEY
LOCUST TREE
5. 12" DIM
HONEY
LOCUST TREE
6. 12" DIM
HONEY
LOCUST TREE
7. 30 FT TALL
ARBORVITAE
TREE
1.12" DIM HONEY
LOCUST TREE
2. 8FT TALL
JUNIPER TREE
12. JUNIPER
SHRUB
11. JUNIPER
SHRUBS
3. 8 FT TALL
JUNIPER TREE
9.WEIGELA
SHRUB
10. WEIGELA
SHRUB
13. JUNIPER
SHRUB
14. JUNIPER
SHRUB
15. JUNIPER
SHRUB
8. JUNIPER
SHRUB
1 - AN 1 - AN
2 - UP1 - PD1 - EK1 - QB
1 - MS
1 - PS3
1 - PD
1 - PS3
1 - QB
1 - RB
1 - RB
1 - AG
8 - AA2
3 - CA2
2 - SM
4 - AA
1 - TN
1 - TN
1 - TN
1 - TN
1 - SM3
1 - SGJ
2 - CA2
2 - SGJ
2 - CA2
2 - SGJ
4 - SGJ 2 - CA2
2 - HL2
4 - AA2
2 - HL2
2 - HL2
5 - HA
1 - AA
1 - TT
1 - TT
1 - AA
7 - RG2 - JM2
3 - HA 4 - TT3 - HA 2 - TN
3 - JM2
3 - JM2
1 - SM3
1 - AA21 - SM
1 - SM
1 - SM
3 - TN
1 - RG
3 - HL2
2 - RG
3 - TT
2 - AA
3 - RG
1 - HL2
1 - TN
2 - HL2
1 - TT
1 - TN
1 - RG
2 - AA
1 - RG
4 - SM3
EVNO
PARKINGNO
PARKING
5' PARKING SETBACK
30' BLDG. SETBACK
5'
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' PARKING SETBACK
5'
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
30
'
B
L
D
G
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
30
'
B
L
D
G
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
30' BLDG. SETBACK
30' BLDG. SETBACK
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
SYMBOL QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME
GROUND COVERS
632 sf
Decorative Rock Mulch / Decorative Rock Mulch
3/4" Screened Red Limestone, Installed on Geotextile Fabric, 3" deep,
w/ landscape eging. Provide Samples. Match existing already in planting
beds.
2,646 sf
ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP / ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP
1.5" DECORATIVE SCREENED ROCK/STONE INSTALLED 3" DEEP
OVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON
LANDSCAPE PLAN.
1,323 sf
SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH 3" DEEP / SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH
DOUBLE SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH INSTALLED 4" DEEP ON
GRADED, WEED FREE, & PREPARED SOIL. PROVIDE EDGING AS
GROUND COVER SCHEDULE
L1.0
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture
5000 Glenwood Avenue
Golden Valley, MN 55422
civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060
COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c
PR
O
J
E
C
T
2025
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
DATE DESCRIPTION
10/17/2025 CITY SUBMITTAL
12/1/2025 CITY RESUBMITTAL
DRAWN BY DK, RB, BN
REVIEWED BY DK, RB
PROJECT MANAGER DK
PROJECT NUMBER 25375
PA
R
K
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
H
U
R
C
H
RE
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
68
0
5
M
I
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
,
S
T
.
L
O
U
I
S
P
A
R
K
,
M
N
5
5
4
2
6
KR
A
U
S
-
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
.
50
1
S
E
I
G
H
T
S
T
,
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
5
5
4
0
4
LICENSE NO.DATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
25821
Robert L. Binder
12/1/2025
LANDSCAPE NOTES:
PROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT
SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS - SEE
PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES
PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT
SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT
SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES
PROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS - SEE
PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES
AND PLANTING SIZES
LEGEND
EDGING - SHALL BE COMMERCIAL GRADE, 4" DEPTH ALUMINUM,
BLACK OR DARK GREEN IN COLOR, INCLUDE ALL CONNECTORS,
STAKES, & ALL APPURTENANCES PER MANUF. INSTALL PER MANUF.
INSTRUC./SPECS.SEE SHEET L1.1 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE
PLANTING SEASON SCHEDULE
SEASON CONIFEROUS DECIDUOUS REMARKS
SPRING PLANTING APRIL 15 - JUNE 15 APRIL 15 - JUNE 15
FALL PLANTING AUGUST 21 - SEPTEMBER 30 AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 15
NOTE: ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
REVISION SUMMARY
DATE DESCRIPTION
4/8/2024 CODE COMMENTS
8/1/2024 CSI #2
0
1" = 20'-0"
20'-0"10'-0"
N
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2.REFERENCE MULCH SCHEDULE FOR MULCH MATERIALS AND LOCATIONS.
3.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM
TREE TRUNK.
4.IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
5.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.
6.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
7.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE
WARRANTED FOR TWO (2) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.
8.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 6" LAYER TOPSOIL AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.
9.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES
AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.
11.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
12.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
13.PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO
HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB.
14.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
1.ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE FULLY IRRIGATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT IRRIGATION SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
2.PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF
ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE
INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF
CURB.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
4.SEE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRRIGATION WATER, METER, AND POWER CONNECTIONS.
5.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION/INSTALLATION. ANY
DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH CORRECTING DAMAGES SHALL BE BORNE ENTIRELY BY THE CONTRACTOR.
6.SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE PER LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY STANDARDS AND SHALL BE PER NATIONAL AND LOCAL
CODES. EXACT LOCATION OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUIVALENT AT THE
JOB SITE.
7.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY FOR THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND METERING FACILITIES.
8.IRRIGATION WATER LINE CONNECTION SIZE IS 1-12" AT BUILDING. VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL PLANS.
9.ALL MAIN LINES SHALL BE 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE.
10.ALL LATERAL LINES SHALL BE 12" BELLOW FINISHED GRADE.
11.ALL EXPOSED PVC RISERS, IF ANY, SHALL BE GRAY IN COLOR.
12.CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT AT 2'-0" BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE TOP OF PAVEMENT. EXTEND SLEEVES
TO 2'-0" BEYOND PAVEMENT.
13.CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK THE LOCATION OF ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT WITH THE SLEEVING MATERIAL "ELLED" TO 2'-0" ABOVE
FINISHED GRADE AND CAPPED.
14.FABRICATE ALL PIPE TO MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH CLEAN AND SQUARE CUT JOINTS. USE QUALITY GRADE PRIMER AND
SOLVENT CEMENT FORMULATED FOR INTENDED TYPE OF CONNECTION.
15.BACKFILL ALL TRENCHES WITH SOIL FREE OF SHARP OBJECTS AND DEBRIS.
16.ALL VALVE BOXES AND COVERS SHALL BE BLACK IN COLOR.
17.GROUP VALVE BOXES TOGETHER FOR EASE WHEN SERVICE IS REQUIRED. LOCATE IN PLANT BED AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
18.IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION SHALL BE VERIFIED ON-SITE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
19.CONTROL WIRES: 14 GAUGE DIRECT BURIAL, SOLID COPPER IRRIGATION WIRE. RUN UNDER MAIN LINE. USE MOISTURE-PROOF SPLICES
AND SPLICE ONLY AT VALVES OR PULL BOXES. RUN SEPARATE HOT AND COMMON WIRE TO EACH VALVE AND ONE (1) SPARE WIRE AND
GROUND TO FURTHEST VALVE FROM CONTROLLER. LABEL OR COLOR CODE ALL WIRES.
20.AVOID OVER SPRAY ON BUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, WALLS AND ROADWAYS BY INDIVIDUALLY ADJUSTING RADIUS OR ARC ON SPRINKLER
HEADS AND FLOW CONTROL ON AUTOMATIC VALVE.
21.ADJUST PRESSURE REGULATING VALVES FOR OPTIMUM PRESSURE ON SITE.
22.USE SCREENS ON ALL HEADS.
23.A SET OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON-SITE AT ALL TIMES IN AN UPDATED CONDITION.
24.ALL PIPE 3" AND OVER SHALL HAVE THRUST BLOCKING AT EACH TURN.
25.ALL AUTOMATIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVES WILL HAVE 3" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4" WASHED GRAVEL UNDERNEATH VALVE AND VALVE BOX.
GRAVEL SHALL EXTENT 3" BEYOND PERIMETER OF VALVE BOX.
26.THERE SHALL BE 3" MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF VALVE BOX COVER AND TOP OF VALVE STRUCTURE.
IRRIGATION NOTES:
㌸
6"
W
M
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
6"
W
M
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
9" VCP
9" VCP (Per Rec.)
9" VCP (Per Rec.)
12" WM (Per Rec.)
12" WM (Per Rec.)
16
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
12
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
16
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
12
"
C
I
P
(
P
e
r
R
e
c
.
)
9"
V
C
P
N89°18'32"E 267.90
S0
1
°
0
8
'
5
7
"
E
2
3
0
.
9
8
S89°13'28"W 134.18
S01°05'32"E
22.00
S89°13'27"W 134.20
N0
1
°
0
2
'
0
6
"
W
2
5
3
.
3
7
Existing House
Existing
Garage
Existing
Garage
2 Story Lap Sided House
Foundation Area =
1,678 +/- Sq. Ft.
Existing House
2 Story Brick Sided Church with Lookout Basement
Foundation Area = 13,411+/- Sq. Ft.
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Concrete Sidewalk
Concrete Sidewalk
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
Concrete
Driveway
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Concrete Steps
Concrete Steps
W/ Railing
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Concrete Step
W/ Railing
Concrete
Access
Truncated Dome
Truncated Domes
Column
Column
Column
Overhang
Overhang
De
c
k
Wood Step
Wood Fence
[A] Wood Fence
Crosses Property Line
Keystone
Retaining Wall
Monument
Sign
[B] Bituminous Parking Lot
Crosses Property Line
Rock Pile
88
.
7
17.9
10
.
7
20.8
6.
1
24.5 2.
5
34.0
2.
4
24.4
35
.
8
19.2
39
.
7
1.0
9.
5
18.3
8.
7
61.8
22
.
0
20.0
11
.
6
17.8
3
1
.
2
21.2
19
.
9
7.1
13
.
6
25.8
26
.
3
40.2
1.3
5.
5
1.4
49
.
8
4.
4
Found 1/2 Inch
Open Iron Pipe
Found 1/2 Inch
Open Iron Pipe
PID: 1711721120215
Address: 6805 Minnetonka Boulevard
PID: 1711721120002
Address: 3029 Idaho Avenue South
Owner: Margaret Peltier
PID: 1711721120016
Address: 3024 Hampshire Avenue South
Owner: Poppenhagen Housing Division
Sa
n
.
M
a
i
n
Wat. Serv.
(Per Rec.)
Wat. Serv. (Per Rec.)
4. 14" DIM
HONEY
LOCUST TREE
5. 12" DIM
HONEY
LOCUST TREE
6. 12" DIM
HONEY
LOCUST TREE
7. 30 FT TALL
ARBORVITAE
TREE
1.12" DIM HONEY
LOCUST TREE
2. 8FT TALL
JUNIPER TREE
12. JUNIPER
SHRUB
11. JUNIPER
SHRUBS
3. 8 FT TALL
JUNIPER TREE
9.WEIGELA
SHRUB
10. WEIGELA
SHRUB
13. JUNIPER
SHRUB
14. JUNIPER
SHRUB
15. JUNIPER
SHRUB
8. JUNIPER
SHRUB
EV
NO
PARKINGNO
PARKING
5' PARKING SETBACK
30' BLDG. SETBACK
5'
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5' PARKING SETBACK
5'
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
30
'
B
L
D
G
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
30
'
B
L
D
G
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
30' BLDG. SETBACK
30' BLDG. SETBACK
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
ARROW. DO NOT
PAINT, FOR CODE
REVIEW ONLY, TYP.
24
.
0
7.
7
5.0
26.0
7.
7
10
.
0
5.
0
24
.
0
91.2
35
.
4
34
.
0
6
.
0
6.0
30
.
0
13.0
8.
5
7.
0
18
.
0
12
.
0
12
.
0
18
.
0
3.
0
18
.
0
12
.
0
12
.
0
18
.
0
18
.
0
7.
0
2.
3
6.
0
3' CURB
TAPER
7' CURB
TAPER
5' CURB
TAPER
PED RAMP,
SEE DETAILS,
TYP.
5' CURB
TAPER
7' CURB
TAPER
3' CURB
TAPER
5' TRANSITION B612
TO SURMOUNTABLE
CURB
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
CONC. WALK
CONC. WALK
CONC. VALLEY
GUTTER
CONC. B612
CURB & GUTTER
CONC. RIBBON
CURB
CONC. B612
CURB &
GUTTER
CONC. B612
CURB & GUTTER
CONC. WALK
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
MATCH
EXISTING
(6) "HOOP STYLE" BICYCLE
RACKS, SURFACE MOUNT
PER MANUF. SPECS.
12 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE
PARKING SPACE,
INCL. SIGNAGE,
STRIPING AND
RAMPS
BIT. PVMT., TYP, SEE FINAL
GEOTECH FOR THICKNESS
CONCRETE COMM.
DRIVEWAY, PER
CITY STANDARDS
PVMT. MARKINGS, TYP
6' WALL TRASH
ENCLOSURE
AREA, SEE
ARCH.
CONCRETE COMM.
DRIVEWAY, PER
CITY STANDARDS
ADJUST SANITARY
CASTING PER PROPOSED
GRADING, SEE SHEET C3.0
TO
TOTO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
R5.0
R
2
0
.
0
R
1
0
.
0
R1
0
.
0
R2
0
.
0
R
5
.
0
R5
.
0
R5.0
R
3
.
0
R3
.
0
R
1
7
.
0
R
1
7
.
0
TO
4' DRAINAGE
SWALE
8' TAPER
CURB.
INSURE BACK
OF CURB IS
WITHIN PROP
LIMITS.
CONC. SURMOUNTABLE
CURB & GUTTER
R
3
.
0
R3
.
0
R
5
.
0
R3
.
0
7' CURB
TAPER
FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV
FEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEV
FEV FEV
FEVFEV
CONCRETE
BOLLARD
TYP.
FEV
14.0
10
.
0
EVEV
FEV
FEVFEV
8' ALUMINUM
FENCE TYP.
4' ALUMINUM
FENCE TYP.
RIBBON
CURB TYP.
3' CURB
TAPER TYP.
COORDINATE WITH
NEIGHBOR ALL SITE WORK
TO BE DONE OUTSIDE OF
PROPERTY LINE
9.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
EV3.0
5
.
0
Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture
5000 Glenwood Avenue
Golden Valley, MN 55422
civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060
COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c
PR
O
J
E
C
T
2025
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
DATE DESCRIPTION
10/17/2025 CITY SUBMITTAL
12/1/2025 CITY RESUBMITTAL
12/22/2025 CITY RESUBMITTAL
DRAWN BY DK, RB, BN, ZH
REVIEWED BY DK, RB
PROJECT MANAGER DK
PROJECT NUMBER 25375
PA
R
K
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
H
U
R
C
H
RE
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
68
0
5
M
I
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
,
S
T
.
L
O
U
I
S
P
A
R
K
,
M
N
5
5
4
2
6
KR
A
U
S
-
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
.
50
1
S
E
I
G
H
T
S
T
,
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
5
5
4
0
4
48776
David J. Knaeble
LICENSE NO.DATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
12/22/2025
SITE LAYOUT NOTES:
SITE PLAN LEGEND:
SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS
REQUIRED.
HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGN
NP = NO PARKING FIRE LANE
ST = STOP
CP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY
PROPERTY LINE
CURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUT
GUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLAN
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
TO
1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY
LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO
LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.
3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS & ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY
THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.
6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE
FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO
BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.
8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS,
PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.
10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF
CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL
GOVERNING BODIES.
11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.
12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.
15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.
17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.
18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.
19.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSTALL ANY SIDEWALK AND CURBING PER DESIGN PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL CURBS AND SIDEWALKS WILL
DRAIN PROPERLY IN FIELD CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEER 24-HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CURB AND/OR SIDEWALK
INSTALLATION TO REVIEW AND INSPECT CURB STAKES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CURB OR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT IF THIS PROCEDURE
IS NOT FOLLOWED.
CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) AS
SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE
BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, WITHIN ROW
SEE CITY DETAIL, WITHIN PRIVATE
PROPERTY SEE CSG DETAIL.
OPERATIONAL NOTES
SNOW REMOVAL
ALL SNOW SHALL BE STORED ON-SITE OUTSIDE
PARKING LOT. WHEN FULL, REMOVAL CO. SHALL
REMOVE EXCESS OFF-SITE.
TRASH REMOVAL
TRASH SHALL BE PLACED IN EXTERIOR TRASH
AREA AND REMOVED BY COMMERCIAL CO.
WEEKLY.
DELIVERIES
DELIVERIES SHALL OCCUR AT THE FRONT DOOR
VIA STANDARD COMMERCIAL DELIVERY
VEHICLES (UPS, FED-EX, USPS).
REVISION SUMMARY
DATE DESCRIPTION
4/8/2024 CODE COMMENTS
5/8/2024 REVISED LIGHT POLE
7/11/2024 CSI #1
8/1/2024 CSI #2
0
1" = 20'-0"
20'-0"10'-0"
N
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
C2.0
SITE PLAN
OWNER INFORMATION
PARK COMMUNITY CHURCH
6805 MINNETONKA BLVD
ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55426
JOHN NESS
320-260-1262
JOHN@PARKMN.COM
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:
1.A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITY WORK IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. CONTACT KAREN WALL
AT (952.924.2548) TO OBTAIN A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT.
FEV
FUTURE EV CAPABLE CHARGING STATION
LOCATION (27 TOTAL) - SEE ELEC'L PLANS
EVR
EV READY CHARGING STATION LOCATION
(2 TOTAL) - SEE ELEC'L PLANS
FUTURE CHARGING STATION LOCATION -
SEE ELEC'L PLANS. PROVIDE CONDUITS
AND CAP IN SIDEWALK AS NECESSARY.
SET 2'-8" BEHIND FACE OF CURB.
㌹
MTL-1
EB-1
GL-1
STN-1
FLASH-1
MTL-3
MTL-4
CONC-1
STN-1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
3
7
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
NORTH ELEVATION - MATERIAL CLASS %
GL-1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL CLASS SF
STN-1
EXISTING GLASS
EXISTING CAST STONE
EXISTING SURFACE PAINTED METAL
EB-1
MTL-2
EXISTING FACE BRICK CLASS 1 2,389 SF
CLASS 3
CLASS 1
CLASS 1 207 SF
295 SF
109 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 1 MATERIALS: 90%
TOTAL % OF CLASS 2 MATERIALS: 6%
EXISTING PREFINISHED METALMTL-1 CLASS 2 130 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 3 MATERIALS: 4%
PREFINISHED METAL PANELMTL-3 CLASS 2 51 SF
PAINTED STEELMTL-4 CLASS 3 14 SF
PREFINISHED METAL FLASHINGFLASH-1 CLASS 2 14 SF
WEST ELEVATION - MATERIAL CLASS %
GL-1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL CLASS SF
STN-1
CONC-1
EXISTING GLASS
EXISTING CAST STONE
EXISTING PIGMENTED CONCRETE
EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL
EB-1
MTL-1
EXISTING FACE BRICK CLASS 1 1,853 SF
CLASS 2
CLASS 1
CLASS 1 353 SF
503 SF
123 SF
CLASS 2 13 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 1 MATERIALS: 92%
TOTAL % OF CLASS 2 MATERIALS: 7%
PAINTED STEEL
MTL-3
MTL-4
PREFINISHED METAL PANEL CLASS 2 53 SF
CLASS 3 13 SF
PREFINISHED METAL FLASHINGFLASH-1 CLASS 2 14 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 3 MATERIALS: 1%
FLASH-1
MTL-3
(wrap existing 6x6
tube steel cols w/
MTL-4)
MTL-1
GL-1
EB-1
STN-1
STN-1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
37
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
NEW EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
GL-2
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH COLOR LOCATION
ALUMINUM
WINDOWS
FLASHING
MTL-3
FLASH-1
METAL PANEL PAC-CLAD PREFINISHED
DARK BRONZE ADDITION
NOTE:
THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS.
PRODUCT
HIGHLINE S1
PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE ADDITION
PREFINISHED BRONZE ADDITION
MTL-4 STEEL SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTED
DARK BRONZE ADDITION
1/8" = 1'-0"AE1.7
2 WEST ELEVATION
D E S I G N
G R O U P
ISSUES & REVISIONS
COMMISSION NO:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET
767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114
651.642.9200
WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM
POPE DESIGN GROUP
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
DATE
10/20/2025 4:04:27 PM
C:\Users\bwicks\Documents\41100-25116_KA - PCC RENOVATION_R25_BWicks_PDG.rvt
AE1.7
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
Checker
Author
41100-25116
PARK
COMMUNITY
CHURCH
BUILDING
RENOVATION
6805 MINNETONKA BLVD
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426
CUP Submission 10-20-25
EXISTING PHOTO: WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"AE1.7
3 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
EXISTING PHOTO: NORTH ELEVATION
ZONING CODE EXCERT: TABLE 36-362A
ZONING CODE EXCERT: 36-362.g
8"
MTL-1
MTL-3
GL-1
SN-1
EB-1
FLASH-1
GL-2
MTL-3
FLASH-1
(wrap existing 6x6 tube steel
cols w/ MTL-4)
(VERTICAL SIDING )
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
37
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
-
1
"
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
LETTERS
MTL-1
MTL-2
EB-1
GL-1
STN-1
STN-1
EB-1
MTL-1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
35
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
17
'
-
1
"
PREFINISHED METAL SIGN
-38 SQUARE FEET
6'
-
0
"
MTL-3
FLASH-1
NEW EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
GL-2
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH COLOR LOCATION
ALUMINUM
WINDOWS
FLASHING
MTL-3
FLASH-1
METAL PANEL PAC-CLAD PREFINISHED
DARK BRONZE ADDITION
NOTE:
THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS.
PRODUCT
HIGHLINE S1
PREFINISHED DARK BRONZE ADDITION
PREFINISHED BRONZE ADDITION
MTL-4 STEEL SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTED DARK BRONZE ADDITION
SOUTH ELEVATION - MATERIAL CLASS %
GL-1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL CLASS SF
STN-1
CONC-1
EXISTING GLASS
EXISTING CAST STONE
EXISTING PIGMENTED CONCRETE
EXISTING SURFACE PAINTED METAL
EB-1
MTL-2
EXISTING FACE BRICK CLASS 1 1,506 SF
CLASS 3
CLASS 1
CLASS 1 15 SF
412 SF
19 SF
CLASS 2 20 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 1 MATERIALS: 64%
TOTAL % OF CLASS 2 MATERIALS: 35%
EXISTING PREFINISHED METALMTL-1 CLASS 2 96 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 3 MATERIALS: 1%
PREFINISHED METAL PANELMTL-3 CLASS 2 979 SF
PAINTED STEELMTL-4 CLASS 3 7 SF
PREFINISHED METAL FLASHINGFLASH-1 CLASS 2 23 SF
GL-2 NEW GLASS
CLASS 1 94 SF
EAST ELEVATION - MATERIAL CLASS %
GL-1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL CLASS SF
STN-1
EXISTING GLASS
EXISTING CAST STONE
EXISTING SURFACE PAINTED METAL
EB-1
MTL-2
EXISTING FACE BRICK CLASS 1 2,982 SF
CLASS 3
CLASS 1
CLASS 1 99 SF
195 SF
24 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 1 MATERIALS: 91%
TOTAL % OF CLASS 2 MATERIALS: 8%
EXISTING PREFINISHED METALMTL-1 CLASS 2 79 SF
TOTAL % OF CLASS 3 MATERIALS: 1%
PREFINISHED METAL PANELMTL-3 CLASS 2 194 SF
PREFINISHED METAL FLASHINGFLASH-1 CLASS 2 12 SF
D E S I G N
G R O U P
ISSUES & REVISIONS
COMMISSION NO:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET
767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114
651.642.9200
WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM
POPE DESIGN GROUP
NOT
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
DATE
10/20/2025 4:04:26 PM
C:\Users\bwicks\Documents\41100-25116_KA - PCC RENOVATION_R25_BWicks_PDG.rvt
AE1.6
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
Checker
Author
41100-25116
PARK
COMMUNITY
CHURCH
BUILDING
RENOVATION
6805 MINNETONKA BLVD
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426
CUP Submission 10-20-25
1/8" = 1'-0"AE1.6
2 SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"AE1.6
4 EAST BUILDING ELEVATION
EXISTING PHOTO: SOUTH ELEVATION
EXISTING PHOTO: EAST ELEVATION EXISTING PHOTO: EAST ELEVATION EXISTING PHOTO: EAST ELEVATION
ZONING CODE EXCERT: TABLE 36-362A
ZONING CODE EXCERT: 36-362.g
8O
42
Planning commission: Regular meeting
Meeting date: January 7, 2026
Agenda item: 4.a.
4.a. 2026 work plan
Executive summary
Title: 2026 work plan
Recommended action: Motion to approve the 2026 work plan for the planning commission and
board of zoning appeals
Summary: The city council requires boards and commissions to annually establish a work plan,
voted on by the board or commission, that is then submitted to the city council. On November
5, 2025, the planning commission (PC) and board of zoning appeals (BOZA) held a study session
to discuss the draft 2026 work plan. The PC/BOZA chair then presented the summary of the
2025 accomplishments and proposed 2026 work plan to the city council for their feedback on
November 10, 2025. The PC/BOZA is now asked to formally approve the 2026 work plan, which
will then be submitted to the city council.
At the PC/BOZA study session, commissioners identified a number of policies and topics they
would like to explore through the 2050 comprehensive plan process. They also discussed a
desire to collaborate with other boards and commissions, as well as outside agencies, such as
Metro Transit, and development stakeholders, like architects and developers. These elements
have been added to the work plan.
Supporting documents: 2026 work plan
Prepared by: Laura Chamberlain, senior planner
Reviewed by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
43
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
Presented to council: November 10, 2025
Approved by council:
1
2026 work plan │ planning commission and board of zoning appeals
1
Initiative name: Planning and zoning application review
Initiative type:
☒ Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐ Independent research project
☒ Gather community feedback
☐ Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☒ Applicant-initiated
☐ Staff-initiated
☐ Commission-initiated
☐ Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐ Yes
☒ No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
All commissioners/board members
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ N/A
Initiative description: Review planning and zoning applications from third parties to the city; hold public hearings to help inform
commission recommendations, and BOZA and council decisions.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Ongoing
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: N/a, application fees generally cover city direct costs
Staff support required: Plan review, neighborhood meeting support, staff reports, recommendations
Liaison comments: Due to statutory requirements that the city respond to formal applications within 60 days, the volume and effort
involved in this initiative is a primary responsibility and impacts the progress on other initiatives list in the work plan.
44
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
2
2
Initiative name: Zoning code update – phase 2
Initiative type:
☒ Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐ Independent research project
☒ Gather community feedback
☐ Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐ Applicant-initiated
☐ Staff-initiated
☐ Commission-initiated
☒ Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐ Yes
☒ No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
All commissioners
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ N/A
Initiative description: Hold public hearing and make recommendation regarding changes to the zoning map, non-residential district
standards and performance zoning standards to better reflect the city’s strategic priorities. This includes, but is not limited to, expansion
of mixed use districts and creation of a high-density mixed use district for transit oriented development areas near rail stations and other
transit corridors.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Q1 2026
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☒ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: Yes, budgeted in community development budget for planning studies
Staff support required: Yes. Planning and zoning staff are working with a consultant to analyze, draft, edit and finalize the zoning code to
be ready for adoption.
Liaison comments: Staff and the planning commission made an extensive effort to complete this phase of the zoning code update within
one year of adoption of phase 1 of the zoning code update. Remaining tasks to adopt and smooth implementation will also require staff
resources beyond adoption and throughout the year.
45
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
3
3
Initiative name: Implement light rail station plans (Arrive + Thrive)
Initiative type:
☒ Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐ Independent research project
☐ Gather community feedback
☐ Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐ Applicant-initiated
☐ Staff-initiated
☐ Commission-initiated
☒ Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐ Yes
☒ No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
All commissioners
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ N/A
Initiative description: Launch Arrive + Thrive online implementation tracker. Commissioners will be asked for feedback on the tracker and
its usefulness going forward. If it is a success, a similar tool may be used for the implementation of the 2050 comprehensive plan.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: Q1 2026
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: Plan was/is budgeted in community development department planning studies. Implementation steps may be folded
into future budgeting.
Staff support required: Yes. GIS staff are creating the online tracker and staff will need to maintain and update the tracker as more
elements of Arrive + Thrive are implemented.
Liaison comments: The planning commission and council approved the plan in 2025. The plan includes implementation steps that may
need to be incorporated into existing commission initiatives and future work plans.
46
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
4
4
Initiative name: 2050 Comprehensive Plan
Initiative type:
☒ Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐ Independent research project
☒ Gather community feedback
☐ Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐ Applicant-initiated
☐ Staff-initiated
☐ Commission-initiated
☒ Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☒ Yes
☐ No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
All commissioners
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ N/A
Initiative description: Kick off to the three-year comprehensive planning process. The planning commission will provide guidance on how
new strategic priorities resulting from Vision 4.0 should frame the comprehensive plan. Efforts in 2026 involve establishing a framework
for the planning process, creating a community engagement plan for the planning process, and beginning to analyze existing conditions of
the city.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: Adoption by end of 2028
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☒ Review and comment or reply ☒ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: Yes. Included in community development dept. planning studies budget – other departments should have dedicated
budget and/or staff time set aside for data/research required for their topics within the comprehensive plan.
Staff support required: Yes – community development staff will lead the planning effort, but input from other departments will be
required.
Liaison comments: As a multi-year effort, the focus in 2026 will be getting elements together, preparing for robust community
engagement and plan drafting in 2027, and agency review and adoption of the plan in 2028.
Topics of interest identified by the commission include: technology and how it’s shaping the city and community, how to make living in
the city more affordable, development of local “third space” places, how to build a network for mobility and access, and how to support
small businesses.
47
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
5
5
Initiative name: Broaden participation
Initiative type:
☒ Staff support (review project,
policy or program and provide
feedback)
☐ Independent research project
☐ Gather community feedback
☐ Lead community event
Initiative origin:
☐ Applicant-initiated
☐ Staff-initiated
☒ Commission-initiated
☐ Council-initiated
Legally required (e.g. response to
Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)?
☐ Yes
☒ No
Commissioner lead(s) name(s):
All commissioners/board members
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ N/A
Initiative description: Identify strategies to broaden, and reduce barriers to, public participation.
Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Ongoing
This section to be completed by staff:
Council request (if applicable): ☒ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☐ Informational only – no response needed
Budget required: not to brainstorm ideas; but to implement ideas may require resources, yes.
Staff support required: TBD, but most likely, yes.
Liaison comments:
Have regular communication from staff about other department or agency events that are relevant to the commission’s work.
Encourage commissioners to help table at project community engagement events – show up as a representative and help talk to
people.
Collaborate with other government agencies (ex. Metro Transit and Hennepin County) and hold listening sessions with
development industry experts (ex. architects and developers).
Staff look into statutory restrictions and possibility of adding voice / video comments for public hearings
48
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
6
Initiative Origin Definitions
Applicant-initiated – Project initiated by 3rd party (statutory boards)
Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff
Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission
Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council
Strategic Priorities
1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
2. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
3. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.
4. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and
reliably.
5. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
Modifications
Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city
council approval at a council meeting.
The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
49
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
Annual work plan
7
Future ideas
Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the
board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan.
Initiative Comments
Parking minimums Explore the possibility of eliminating parking minimums from the zoning code through research and analysis
Water conservation and
water recycling
Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground water
resources.
Housing analysis Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on present inventory and unmet
demand and promote homeownership opportunities as well as inclusionary housing goals.
50