Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/01/21 - ADMIN - Minutes - Planning Commission - Regular Official Minutes Planning commission St. Louis Park, Minnesota January 21, 2026 1. Call to order – 6:00 p.m. Roll Call Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Matt Eckholm, John Flanagan, Sylvie Hyman, Sarah Strain, Tom Weber Members absent: Tess Machalek Staff present: Katelyn Champoux, Laura Chamberlain Guest: Ian Thomas, resident Sheldon Berg, DJR Architects 2. Approval of Minutes – January 7, 2026. It was moved by Commissioner Eckholm, seconded by Commissioner Weber to approve the January 7, 2026 minutes. The motion passed 7-0. 3. Hearing 3a. Title: Park Community Church conditional use permit Location: 6805 Minnetonka Blvd. Applicant: Park Community Church Case No: 25-08-CUP Ms. Champoux, associate planner, presented the Park Community Church conditional use permit application for 6805 Minnetonka Boulevard. Staff recommended reopening the public hearing (continued from Jan. 7, 2026), taking public testimony, and then recommending approval of the conditional use permit to allow a religious institution with a parking requirement reduction of 13 spaces at 6805 Minnetonka Blvd. The property contains a 29,000 square foot church building and a 1,600 square foot parish house in the N-2 zoning district. The proposal includes interior renovation of the sanctuary and community spaces, a 500 square foot expansion on the south side, and replacing existing pavement on the north and west sides with green space. The project would remove two access points on Minnetonka Boulevard and add significant landscaping, including 30 trees and 172 shrubs while preserving existing trees. The project would reduce impervious surface coverage from approximately 75% to 59%. Ms. Champoux detailed the parking requirements, noting that after applying a 15% transit reduction, 98 spaces would be required. The church proposed 60 off-street spaces with potential for 12 additional spaces through proof of parking, plus 13 street parking spaces, for a total of 85 spaces. She noted the zoning code allows for parking requirement revisions through Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 January 21, 2026 Official minutes Planning commission a conditional use permit, and staff supported the 13-space reduction based on the adjacent community center having ample parking and an informal shared parking arrangement with the church. The project would include electric vehicle charging infrastructure with 4 spaces served by chargers and 28 spaces with conduit for future chargers, plus 12 bike parking spaces. A neighborhood meeting was held on Dec. 3, 2025 at Park Community Church. One resident attended and shared concerns about street parking and how the city calculates its parking requirements but did not oppose the project. Chair Flanagan reopened the public hearing. Mr. Ian Thomas, a resident, spoke in support of the project, praising the conversion of impervious surface to green space and the parking reduction. He suggested that churches know their parking needs and street parking is a public resource. He also encouraged the commission to consider eliminating all parking mandates, as other cities have done, noting benefits for sustainability, health, safety, and affordable housing. Chair Flanagan closed the public hearing. Commissioner Divecha appreciated the green space additions and improved driveway access that prioritizes pedestrians on Minnetonka Blvd. Commissioner Weber thanked the guests for attending and participating in the meeting. Commissioner Eckholm commended the applicant for embracing the city's 2040 plan rather than seeking variances. Chair Flanagan noted the safety improvements from removing access points on Minnetonka Boulevard and redirecting traffic to side streets. It was moved by Commissioner Beneke, seconded by Commissioner Hyman, to approve the Park Community Church conditional use permit. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. Title: Parkway on 5 preliminary and final plat, and variance Location: 5430 Minnetonka Blvd. Applicant: Sela Investments, Ltd., LLP Case No: 25-10-S, 25-11-VAR Ms. Champoux presented the Parkway on 5 application for 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard. Staff recommended approval of rescinding previous approvals on the site, approval of the preliminary and final plat, and approval of a variance to allow an 11-foot front yard setback instead of the required 25 feet for the underground parking portion. Ms. Champoux explained the property was rezoned to N-2 zoning district, which allows various housing types. The project would include:  A mix of units: 4 alcoves, 21 one-bedroom, and 9 two-bedroom units  52 off-street parking spaces (38 underground, 14 surface). Zoning code requires 33 parking spaces. The applicant proposes more than the required spaces due to the parking restrictions along the site on Minnetonka Blvd. and Vernon Avenue S. Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 January 21, 2026 Official minutes Planning commission  A public trail east of the property connecting Minnetonka Boulevard to Utica Avenue South  Landscaping exceeding code requirements with 57 trees and 365 shrubs  42 bike parking spaces The variance request was specifically for the underground parking portion, as the above-ground structure would meet the 25-foot setback requirement. A copy of the variance narrative from th e applicant was provided to the commissioners since it was not in the agenda packet and it is included as “Attachment 1”. Ms. Champoux explained the practical difficulties include the site's 10-foot elevation change and the desire to comply with the city's shadow ordinance while minimizing impacts on neighboring properties. The project team held a neighborhood meeting on Jan. 7, 2026 and approximately 14 people attended. Attendees shared their comments and questions about topics such as outdoor lighting, parking and site access. Another resident comment was received after the agenda packet was created. A copy of the resident’s comments in opposition was provided to the planning commissioners before the meeting and is included as “Attachment 2”. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing. Mr. Sheldon Berg from DJR Architecture represented the project. He explained that site contamination from the previous gas station would be addressed during construction, with contaminated soil being removed and clean fill brought in. Mr. Berg noted that the owner included extra parking due to the lack of on-street parking options nearby and wanted to be a good neighbor by ensuring residents and guests would not need to park in the surrounding neighborhood. In response to commissioner questions, Mr. Berg clarified that there would be a mix of secured indoor and outdoor bike parking, and that while there was technically only one 3-bedroom unit (labeled as a 2-bedroom plus den with a closet), the owner's experience suggested smaller units were easier to rent. Chair Flanagan closed the meeting. After closing the public hearing, commissioners expressed support for the redevelopment of this vacant site, noting that an apartment building would generate less traffic than the previous gas station or potential commercial uses and the underground parking was an appropriate design choice for the location. Commissioners acknowledged that while the project did not include affordable units or many family-sized apartments, it is a good utilization of the site. It was moved by Commissioner Hyman, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm to recommend rescinding previous approvals on the site, recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat, and recommend approval of a variance at 5430 Minnetonka Blvd. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Communications Ms. Chamberlain noted that the final draft of the Vision 4.0 document was available on the city website. Future scheduled meeting/event dates: Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 January 21, 2026 Official minutes Planning commission  February 4, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting  February 25, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting*  March 4, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting  March 25, 2026 – planning commission regular meeting** *meeting held on Feb. 25, 2026 since Ash Wednesday is Feb. 18, 2026. **meeting held on March 25 since since Eid-a-Fitr potentially begins March 18. 6. Adjournment – 7:05 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison John Flanagan, chair member These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited by a staff person. Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 December 8, 2025 Re: Variance Narrative for 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard We are requesting a variance for the front yard setback on Minnetonka Boulevard from 25 feet standard to 16.1 feet on the east and 11 feet to the west due to the angle of Minnetonka Boulevard. The requested encroachment is completely underground and all above-ground components meet the 25’-0” setback with setbacks ranging from 25 feet on the east side to over 50 feet back on the west side of the lot. The requested underground setback variance is for a little over half of the overall length of the site frontage. Findings: 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. Response: The proposed variance will have no effect on the surrounding health, safety and welfare of the community as the requested variance is completely underground and is topped with hardscape and plantings such that passersby would not be aware of the existence of the structure. In addition, the parking that constitutes the main reason for the variance request is due to no street parking being available on either Minnetonka Boulevard or Vernon Avenue adjacent to the parking. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Response: The request is keeping in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance as all above ground setbacks are maintained for the project site. In addition, this reduces the amount of on-grade parking and additional impervious surface. 3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Response: The request and planned use of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan by keeping to the prescribed density of 30 units per acre limit on site. The project is proposing to accommodate the required parking below grade. 4. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. This means that: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items. Response: The proposed use is permitted in the N-2 zoning district where the site is located. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Response: The request is necessitated by the topography of the site and the fact project parking is not allowed on either of the projects two streets. Neither circumstance was created by the landowner. The topography of the site descends along Minnetonka Boulevard and Vernon Avenue to drop approximately 10 feet from the southeast corner to the north and west. This drop in topography exacerbates the challenges in relative height from a three-story building to the single-story structures to the north. In order to maintain the shadowing requirements in the zoning code, we have shifted the apartment building to the south to maintain this standard. In addition, as there is no street parking available on either street at this property and to reduce the impervious paving on site, we are locating the majority of the parking below grade resulting in a request for this variance. Attachment 1 Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 2 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: As the requested variance is completely underground, there will be no altering of the essential character of the street. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Response: Economic considerations are not related to this request, as it is more costly to provide underground parking than relatively free parking on the neighboring streets. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Response: The project building was pushed further south as a result of limiting the shadowing effects of the building on the neighboring buildings to the north. 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions or other physical conditions of the property. Response: As stated above in item 4b, the topography of the site is the main consideration that caused the building to shift further south. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Response: The project is proposing an apartment building in keeping with the rights and limitations of the zoning code in all other respects. The variance merely allows the inclusion of additional interior parking for the future residents of the building. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Response: The project is in keeping in all other respects to the zoning and existing conditions around the site and actually surpasses the setbacks of several other nearby buildings on Minnetonka Boulevard including: 5224 Minnetonka (10 feet setback), 5551 Lake Street (16 feet setback), 5621 Minnetonka Boulevard (15 feet setback) [See attached]. The variance will also give more breathing room to the duplex and single-family building neighbors to the north, so does not constitute an impairment to the light and air, or increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety. In fact, the project will be cleaning up contaminated soils on the site during project construction. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Response: The request does alleviate a practical difficulty due to the topography of the site and the lack of street parking available on the adjacent streets. The granting of the variance will just allow the project to provide the off-street parking necessary to the project. Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 5621 Mtka Blvd 3000 Hwy 100 5551 Lake St 5600 Lake St 5430 Minnetonka Blvd 5224 Mtka Blvd 10 FT Setback80 FT Setback 16 FT Setback 20 FT Setback 15 FT Setback Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956 Outlook Parkway On 5 Project Opposition >From Rob Theisen < Date Wed 1/21/2026 2:47 PM To Katelyn Champoux <kchampoux@stlouisparkmn.gov> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognizethe sender and know the content is safe. Dear City of St. Louis Park Officials, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed apartment complex planned for thee nd of my street. My primary concern is traffic safety. The location of this development would significantly obstruct visibility at the end of the street, creating hazardous conditions for residents, pedestrians, and drivers. Reduced sightlines in an already constrained area increase the risk of accidents and make it more difficult to safely enter and exit the roadway. In addition, the development will inevitably lead to increased traffic on a street that was not designedt o accommodate higher volumes of vehicles. Additional daily traffic from residents, visitors, deliveryveh icles, and service providers will negatively impact safety, congestion, and overall neighborhood livability. I am also concerned about the impact of construction itself. Extended construction activity will bringh eavy equipment, noise, dust, and temporary street obstructions, further worsening traffic flow andcr eating ongoing disruptions for nearby residents. I respectfully ask the City to reconsider this project as currently proposed, or at minimum conduct atho rough traffic and safety analysis that fully accounts for visibility issues, traffic volume increases, andcon struction impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of residents who will be directly affected byt his development. I appreciate the City’s commitment to responsible planning and public safety. Sincerely, Rob Theisen 1/21/26, 2:55 PM Attachment 2 Parkway On 5 Project Opposition ‐ Katelyn Champoux ‐ Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane2 1/1 Docusign Envelope ID: CC0E63F1-24E9-4C25-A9D7-4FA700DF6956