Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/10/08 - ADMIN - Minutes - Planning Commission - Study SessionOfficial Minutes 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Article VI (nonconformities) into Article I. Article I Commissioner Weber asked about the sequence of sections and the outdated language of Article I. Why does it start with the findings, then has the purpose for the code.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 The commissioners suggested a number of potential edits to the outdated language of the purpose, findings, interpretation, and definitions in this article.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. Docusign Envelope ID: 51CF7162-F215-4E08-9007-A2B79A4BEE99 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Oct. 8, 2025 2 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. Docusign Envelope ID: 51CF7162-F215-4E08-9007-A2B79A4BEE99 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Oct. 8, 2025 3 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 Docusign Envelope ID: 51CF7162-F215-4E08-9007-A2B79A4BEE99 Official Minutes Planning commission study session Oct. 8, 2025 4 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 Docusign Envelope ID: 51CF7162-F215-4E08-9007-A2B79A4BEE99