Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/07/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. JULY 11, 2018 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: June 6, 2018 3. Hearings A. Zoning code amendment: accessory uses in industrial districts Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 18-27-ZA 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment STUDY SESSION 1. EV Charging Stations Ordinance 2. Transparency Ordinance 3. Mixed Use District If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development office, 952.924.2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 6, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Matt Eckholm, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, HKGi 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of April 18, 2018 and May 2, 2018 Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to approve the minutes of April 18, 2018 and May 2, 2018. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0. 3. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit – French American School of Mpls. Location: 2220, 2211 and 2221 Florida Avenue South Applicant: French American School of Mpls. Case No.: 18-15-CUP Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a daycare. He reviewed the proposed use and provided an analysis of the criteria considered for conditional use permit and daycare. Mr. Morrison reviewed conditions specific to daycare in the IP Industrial Park zoning district. He stated that the north side of the outdoor play area shows a zero foot setback instead of the required 15 feet. That requirement must be met and is listed as a condition of approval. Mr. Morrison said the applicant will revise the plan to meet the requirement. Mr. Morrison reviewed the adjacent uses of the property. He said what makes this a little more complicated is that industrial uses and materials can change over time. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 6, 2018 Page 2 Mr. Morrison discussed the proposed crosswalk, parking, and the access and parking easement. He discussed additional landscaping which will be required. Commissioner Carper asked what kind of traffic might be expected near the site. Mr. Morrison described the cul-de-sac. A hockey training facility is at the north end. Its peak times are weekends and evenings. The Shotwell business, a metal fabrication industry, is just north of the daycare facility. Mr. Morrison said he received a phone call from the owner of Shotwell who said his business receives several trucks during the day, particularly in the morning. Mr. Morrison said the owner, Mike Bloomquist, expressed concern about the daycare. Mr. Morrison said it is expected the daycare will have early morning drop-offs and pick-ups at the end of the day. The building located south of the property is for sale. Commissioner Carper asked if there would be any other vehicles, such as buses, on-site transporting children. Mr. Morrison suggested directing the question to the applicant. Chair Robertson asked if the code allows the drop-off as proposed. Mr. Morrison said the intent of code is to not use the street itself for drop-off. Veronique Liebmann, applicant, spoke about her work with the French American School of Minneapolis. She said she looks forward to continuing the work she started and expanding this early childhood program in the city. She said there will not be any use of the drop-off required by the city due to the age of the children. Department of Human Services requires guardians to bring children into the building and drop them off at the classroom door. Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. Thomas Peterson said he has lived at 6625 Eliot View Rd. for 40 years. He spoke of his involvement in neighborhood planning over the years with city government including the 394 task force, a zoning task force, Comp Plan committee, Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, and cell tower activism. He said everything in this industrial park affects his home. He spoke about the evolution of neighborhoods for the good and for the bad. He said this industrial park is changing and things which aren’t industrial are moving in such as the hockey training facility. He spoke about the 312 vehicle trips per day the school will produce and only one way in and one way out of the industrial park. He said with present zoning the city can’t have over 1,000-1,500 feet one way in and one way out for safety reasons. At the end of the cul-de-sac all this traffic will be created. He said he worries about semis breaking down, someone getting hurt and the Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 6, 2018 Page 3 ability of emergency vehicles to get in and out. He said to put this much traffic this far into the industrial park is a concern. Mr. Peterson said traffic on Cedar Lake Rd. is crazy ever since construction on Highway 100 which results in cut-through traffic in his neighborhood. He said he has concerns about adding traffic. He said it is not a bad thing for an industrial park to evolve with the needs of the community. Mr. Peterson spoke about the industrial park 35 years ago. He said the task force got the city to implement hours of operation 18 hours a day. He said later those regulations were loosened so that the 15 homes are backed up to industrial which can run 24/7. He said there is no buffer zone. He said the hockey facility and daycare will share early morning and after school traffic. Mr. Peterson said now there will be parking on Florida on the daycare side. That should be eliminated for safety so kids aren’t blocked by parked cars. He said it would be smarter if drivers could do a U-turn at the turnaround and drop the child off right at the sidewalk, rather than parking and walking over with the children. He commented that there’s no facility with water for plantings. All the plantings will die without watering. He said flashing lights or signage should be placed at the crosswalk. Mr. Peterson stated the rear fence to the west has deteriorated immensely and needs to be repaired for children’s safety. He spoke about the asphalt playground without shade as a terrible environment for children. Mr. Peterson distributed two proposals. The first was for a city park at 6560 W. 23rd St. He said the city has taken away two parks from the neighborhood. He proposed a play area in the vacant land at 6560 W. 23rd St. The second proposal was for a designated buffer zone between R-1 Eliot View Neighborhood and Edgewood Industrial Park. He said if the industrial park behind his house is going to be intensified a buffer zone should be created. He said his house has been blighted by the industrial park for 40 years. Mike Bloomquist, owner Shotwell Co., 2200 Florida Ave. S., said the sheet metal fabricator industry is 125 years old and has been located in the industrial park for 27 years. When they first moved in they had a lot of trouble with neighbors on noise and vibration issues from their business. He said that is one of his concerns and he thinks the daycare owner should be concerned about noise and vibration issues. He invited the applicant to come over and find out if that is a concern. Some resolution occurred when the company moved to 90% laser cutting. He said they still do some shearing and punching, however. He said it doesn’t make sense to have daycare in an industrial area. He said they have 30 some deliveries per day with big 18 wheeler trucks, pick-up trucks and vans. The people from the Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 6, 2018 Page 4 hockey facility and his employees do drive fast on the street. He said if he had small children he wouldn’t want them in daycare with a playground across the street. Parents should come and see that. He recommended that the applicant checks out the issue of vibrations from industry. Terry Gips, 9000 W. 28th St., said he was a member of the Environment and Sustainability Commission for six years, as well as serving as Chair and Vice Chair. He said his family has been connected with the French American School for 18 years. His four children went through the program. He commented that it is one of the best run child care programs anywhere. People come from all over the Twin Cities to be part of the program and it is an excellent way to raise kids. He said he thinks it is one of the great gems of St. Louis Park. He said he was on the search committee for a new location and he feels very comfortable about the site in terms of safety. Mr. Gips said he feels it would be a huge asset to keep the school in the city. Chair Robertson closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Carper said the public remarks have been very interesting, but he can see no reason to prevent this request from going through. Chair Robertson said he agrees as everything from a zoning point of view has been addressed and meets all of the requirements. He said he assumes that the applicant is going into business negotiations with their eyes wide open. He sees nothing that says this isn’t a good fit. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she agreed. She said she hoped Mr. Peterson would speak to his councilmember about buffer and playground ideas. Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0. B. Preliminary Plat of Louisiana Alignment Second Addition Location: 7180 and 7200 Lake Street W. Applicant: Crown Castle Case No.: 18-20-S Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The plat is being requested to combine two city owned lots. Crown Castle, current lease holder, intends to replace the existing communication tower, meeting city code for co-location and height. The applicant requests to combine the two properties to meet the minimum side yard requirements for the tower replacement. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 6, 2018 Page 5 The Chair opened the public hearing. The hearing was closed as no one was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Kraft seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0. 4. Other Business A. Comprehensive Plan – Review Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, provided an overview of the process and plan. She reviewed the upcoming timeline. Commissioner Ecklund made a motion recommending approval to send out the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan for 6-month adjacent community review. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-1 (Carper opposed). Commissioner Carper said his concern was that the Comp Plan is moving forward for review without the Plan by Neighborhood Section and without Item 13 Appendix F Neighborhood Input. Chair Robertson commented that the draft is for review by adjacent communities. As this process moves forward the neighborhood items will be refined and added. Ms. McMonigal said templates of neighborhood plans were shared with the Commission to show what format will be used. She said the plans are not all complete and do not contain goals and strategies, which means it is not a policy document. She explained that it will contain some neighborhood priority issues. She said there is a lot more demographic data than previous plans, which was used for the neighborhood planning workshops. She said the consultant, HKGi , is finishing up the neighborhood sections. Ms. McMonigal said the Neighborhood Plan can come back to the Commission when it is complete for review. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said Ms. McMonigal’s explanation was how she had understood the process and timeline for the neighborhood section of the plan. Jeff Miller, consultant, HKGi, said commissioners had seen the draft for the northeast planning area improvement priorities. He said he and staff are focusing on what was heard at the neighborhood planning workshops in November and December, the December survey, and what is learned from the current survey. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 6, 2018 Page 6 Commissioner Carper said he had no disagreement with the format. He said his concern is that there is no detail and the Commission doesn’t know how representative the information that will be prepared is to the neighborhood. He said the neighborhoods need to be allowed to look at that and give some feedback on whether or not they choose to concur with it, or choose not to pay attention to it. Commissioner Carper stated he felt the vote was rushed and there was no opportunity to comment between the motions and the vote. He said he thinks it is important for other cities to see what the neighborhoods’ concerns are because they may have similar concerns and they may want to comment at the neighborhood level. He said he’s interested in the neighborhood concerns that would be part of Edina’s Comp Plan, for example. He said he is looking forward to seeing the Plan by Neighborhood section for St. Louis Park. Ms. McMonigal stated she does expect to send it out to the adjacent communities. She said some additional steps in the process can occur. It can be discussed at Planning Commission meetings and we can find a way to try to gain some more public input on it, including putting it online on notices through social media. She said that can be accomplished this summer. Commissioner Carper said that sounded reasonable. B. Election of Vice Chair Chair Robertson made a motion recommending Claudia Johnston-Madison as Vice Chair. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. 5. Communications Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, spoke about the items to be considered at the June 20 meeting. He also noted that the July 4, 2018 Planning Commission meeting has been rescheduled to July 11, 2018. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Agenda Item 3A 3A. Ordinance regarding uses in industrial districts. Case No.: 18-27-ZA Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the zoning code amendment to modify conditions applied to breweries and allow outdoor seating and service of food and beverage as an accessory use in industrial zoning districts, as recommended by staff. Request: The St. Louis Park community development department requests zoning code text amendments that would to apply to the I-P Industrial Park and I-G General Industrial zoning districts. The amended text of Section 36-243 and Section 36-244 is attached to this report. In summary it allows: 1. A greater amount of gross floor area in breweries to be used for any combination of retail and taproom, and 2. Outdoor seating and service of food and beverage as an accessory use. The new language is based on existing language in the BP Business Park zoning district. Proposed amendment to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use: The proposed amendment includes several conditions designed to reduce and eliminate potential impacts the outdoor seating may have on residential properties in close proximity to the business. The conditions are summarized below: 1. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story above the principal use. 2. No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are permitted if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. 3. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. 4. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. Locations of industrial districts: Attached to this report is a map that show the areas in the city that are zoned IP and IG that may take advantage of the proposed amendment. Staff believes the impacts of the proposed amendment are minimal city wide. Agenda Item No 3A. Zoning ordinance amendment – accessory uses in industrial districts Page 2 Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached zoning ordinance to modifying conditions applied to breweries and allowing outdoor seating with food and beverage service in industrial zoning districts as an accessory use in the IP Industrial Park and IG General Industrial zoning districts. Attachments: Map of industrial district locations Draft zoning code amendment Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Agenda Item No 3A. Zoning ordinance amendment – accessory uses in industrial districts Page 3 Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Agenda Item No 3A. Zoning ordinance amendment – accessory uses in industrial districts Page 4 Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Ordinance No. ___-18 The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. *** (11) Brewery. The conditions are as follows: a. The brewery shall not produce more than 20,000 barrels of malt liquor per year. (Ord. No. 2469-15, 6-1-15) b. Up to 1525% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. (Ord. No. 2418-12, 9-14-12) *** (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted uses in an I-P district: *** (10) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverage, subject to the following conditions: a. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story above the principal use. b. No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are permitted if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. c. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. *** Agenda Item No 3A. Zoning ordinance amendment – accessory uses in industrial districts Page 5 Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district. *** (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an I-G district: *** (14) Brewery without taproom. (Ord. No. 2358-08, 8-14-08; Ord. No. 2418-12, 9-14-12; Ord. No. 2444-13, 8-30-2013) (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an I-G district may be used for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-242, and those specified for the use permitted in this subsection: *** (17) Brewery with taproom. Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. *** (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted within any I-G district: *** (10) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverage, subject to the following conditions: a. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story above the principal use. b. No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are permitted if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. c. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use. d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. Agenda Item No 3A. Zoning ordinance amendment – accessory uses in industrial districts Page 6 Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council August 6, 2018 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney First Reading July 16, 2018 Second Reading August 6, 2018 Date of Publication August 16, 2018 Date Ordinance takes effect August 31, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Study Session Item 1 1. Zoning ordinance amendment – electric vehicle charging stations RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. Staff will present the draft ordinance and request comments from the commissioners. POLICY QUESTIONS: • Does the planning commission support offering incentives to businesses and developers to assist in complying with a future EVCS ordinance? • What criteria should the ordinance apply to existing buildings and businesses? SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends the parking regulations to require electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) when new developments and parking lot expansions are proposed. The intent is to facilitate and encourage the use of electric vehicles and to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle infrastructure. On August 16, 2017, the planning commission discussed the components of a future zoning ordinance requiring electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) in new developments and building or parking lot expansions. Staff presented a draft ordinance to the commission on December 6, 2017. Staff also discussed the draft ordinance at a city council study session on June 25, 2018. Since staff last brought the draft ordinance to planning commission, the following revisions have been made: 1. Level 2 charging station requirements for non-residential uses revised to 1 or 2 stations based on facility size rather than percent of total required parking. 2. Requirement that new or reconstructed parking lots of 15-49 stalls install EVCS, based on land use. 3. Refinement to technical language concerning EVCS infrastructure. Staff are exploring incentives the city may offer to businesses and developers to aid in compliance with the ordinance. City council has also directed staff to explore different compliance requirements for existing or renovated properties, to ensure the cost of EVCS does not place an undue burden on projects for existing properties. NEXT STEPS: At a future planning commission study session, staff will present potential incentives for businesses and developers, as well as an implementation plan for the ordinance for the commission’s review and consideration. Attachment: Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Meeting of July 11, 2018 Page 2 Subject: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Article IV. Zoning Districts DIVISION 2. LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS Sec. 36-142 Descriptions. *** (d) Commercial uses *** (20) Motor fuel station means a facility which supplies and dispenses at retail motor fuels, including electrical charging, directly into a motor vehicle; it also includes the sale of lubricants, batteries, tires and motor vehicle accessories. Motor fuels may be self-serve or dispensed by an attendant. Light maintenance activities to vehicles including engine tune-ups, lubrication, repairs, and carburetor cleaning may also be conducted. Motor fuel stations may also include facilities for the retail electric charging of vehicles. Characteristics include outdoor activity, high traffic generation and extended hours of operation. This use excludes heavy automobile repair including, but not limited to, engine overhauls, automobile painting, and bodywork. Article V. Special Provisions Sec. 36-361. Off-street parking areas, paved areas, and loading spaces. *** (e) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. The intent of this section is to facilitate and encourage the use of electric vehicles, to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle infrastructure, and establish minimum requirements for such infrastructure. (1) Definitions. a. Accessible electric vehicle charging station means an electric vehicle charging station where the battery charging station is located within accessible reach of a barrier-free access aisle and the electric vehicle. b. Battery charging station means an electrical component, assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries within electric vehicles. c. Battery electric vehicle means any vehicle that operates exclusively on electrical energy from an off-board source that is stored in the vehicle’s batteries, and produces zero tailpipe emissions or pollution when stationary or operating. d. Charging levels means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle’s battery is recharged. The terms 1, 2, and 3 are the most common charging levels, and include the following specifications: Meeting of July 11, 2018 Page 3 Subject: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 1. Level-1 is considered slow charging with 120v outlets. 2. Level-2 is considered medium charging with 240v outlets 3. Level-3 is considered fast or rapid charging. Voltage is greater than 240. e. Electric vehicle means a vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the electrical grid, or an off grid source, that is stored on board for motive purposes. “Electric vehicle” includes: 1. Battery electric vehicle. 2. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. f. Electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) means a public or private parking space that is served by battery charging station equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. An electric vehicle charging station equipped with Level-1 or Level-2 charging equipment is permitted outright as an accessory use to any principal use. g. Electric vehicle charging station – private restricted use means an electric vehicle charging station that is: 1. privately owned and restricted access (e.g., single-family home, executive parking, designated employee parking, assigned parking at multi-family residential buildings); or 2. publicly owned and restricted (e.g., fleet parking with no access to the general public). h. Electric vehicle charging station – public use means an electric vehicle charging station that is: 1. publicly owned and publicly available (e.g., Park & Ride parking, public library parking lot, on-street parking); or 2. privately owned and available to visitors of the use (e.g., shopping center parking). i. Electric vehicle infrastructure means conduit/wiring, structures, machinery, and equipment necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including battery charging stations and rapid charging stations. j. Electric vehicle parking space means any marked parking space that identifies the use to be exclusively for the parking of an electric vehicle. k. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle means an electric vehicle that: 1. contains an internal combustion engine and also allows power to be delivered to drive wheels by an electric motor; Meeting of July 11, 2018 Page 4 Subject: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 2. charges its battery primarily by connecting to the grid or other off-board electrical source; 3. may additionally be able to sustain battery charge using an on-board internal- combustion-driven generator; and 4. has the ability to travel powered by electricity. (2) Number of Required Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. a. All new or reconstructed parking structures or lots with at least 15 but no more than 49 spaces, or expanded parking structures or lots that result in a parking lot with 15 to 49 parking spaces, shall install EVCS as required below. 1. Multiple-family residential land uses shall have 5% of required parking as Level 1 stations for resident parking. At least one handicapped accessible parking space shall have access to an EVCS. 2. Non-residential land uses with parking spaces available for use by the general public shall have at least 5% of required parking as Level 1 stations, and one Level 2 station that serves long term parking (e.g.: employees and commuters). At least one handicapped accessible parking space shall have access to an EVCS. b. All new or reconstructed parking structures or lots with at least 50 parking spaces, or expanded parking structures or lots that result in a parking lot with 50 or more parking spaces, shall install EVCS as required below. 1. Multiple-family residential land uses shall have 10% of required parking as Level 1 stations for resident parking, and one Level 2 station for guest parking. At least one handicapped accessible parking space shall have access to an EVCS. 2. Non-residential land uses with parking spaces available for use by the general public shall have at least 5% of required parking as Level 1 stations, and two of the required parking spaces as Level 2 stations that serves long term parking (e.g.: employees and commuters), with at least one station adjacent to an accessible parking space. In non-residential zoned districts, Level 3 charging stations may be installed to satisfy the EVCS requirements described above. c. In addition to the number of required EVCSs, the following accommodations shall be required for the anticipated future growth in market demand for electric vehicles: 1. Multiple-Family Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level-2 EVCSs for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. 2. Non-Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level-2 and Level-3 EVCSs for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. Meeting of July 11, 2018 Page 5 Subject: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 3. ’Electrical capacity’ shall mean, at minimum: 1. panel capacity to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install a 208/240V outlet; 2. conduit from an electric panel to future EVCS location(s). d. These requirements may be revised upward or downward by the City Council as part of an application for a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development based on verifiable information pertaining to parking. (3) Permitted Locations. a. Level-1 and Level-2 EVCSs are permitted in every zoning district, when accessory to the primary permitted use. Such stations located at single-family, two-family, and multiple-family shall be designated as private restricted use only. b. Level-3 EVCSs are permitted in the non-residential districts, when accessory to the primary permitted use. c. If the primary use of the parcel is the retail electric charging of vehicles, then the use shall be considered a motor fuel station for zoning purposes. Installation shall be located in zoning districts which permit motor fuel stations. (4) General Requirements for Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts. a. EVCSs shall be located in a garage, or on the exterior wall of the home or garage adjacent to a parking space. b. EVCSs shall comply with all relevant design criteria as outlined in section (5)d, unless specifically exempted. (5) General Requirements for Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential Development Parking. a. Accessible Spaces. A charging station will be considered accessible if it is located adjacent to, and can serve, an accessible parking space as defined and required by the ADA It is not necessary to designate the EVCS exclusively for the use of vehicles parked in the accessible space. b. EVCSs – public use shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. The EVCSs shall be located in a manner that will be easily seen by the public for informational and security purposes. 2. The EVCSs shall be located in desirable and convenient parking locations that will serve as an incentive for the use of electric vehicles. Meeting of July 11, 2018 Page 6 Subject: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 3. The EVCS may be on a timer that limits the use of the station to the normal business hours of the use(s) that it serves to preclude unauthorized use after business hours. c. Lighting. Site lighting shall be provided where an EVCS is installed, unless charging is for daytime purposes only. d. Equipment Design Standards. 1. Battery charging station outlets and connector devices shall be mounted to comply with state code, and must comply with all relevant Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Equipment mounted on pedestals, lighting posts, bollards, or other devices shall be designed and located as to not impede pedestrian travel or create trip hazards on sidewalks. 2. Electric vehicle charging devices may be located adjacent to designated parking spaces in a garage or parking lot as long as the devices do not encroach into the required dimensions of the parking space (length, width, and height clearances). 3. The design should be appropriate to the location and use. Facilities should be able to be readily identified by electric vehicle users and blend into the surrounding landscape/architecture for compatibility with the character and use of the site. 4. EVCS pedestals shall be designed to minimize potential damage by accidents, vandalism and to be safe for use in inclement weather. e Usage Fees. The property owner may collect a service fee for the use of an EVCS. f. Maintenance. EVCSs shall be maintained in all respects, including the functioning of the equipment. A phone number or other contact information shall be provided on the equipment for reporting problems with the equipment or access to it. Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Study Session Item 2 2. Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements Recommended action: Provide feedback to staff on transparency requirements for non- residential buildings. Summary: The city has regulated the amount of ground floor transparency in order to increase the interaction between the internal spaces of a building with the public realm (streets and sidewalks). The city has an interest to allow people inside buildings to easily observe street life, and improve public safety. Transparency regulations are particularly important in areas where there is, and where there is desired to be, high pedestrian traffic. Ground floor windows and transparent doors may also strengthen the commercial viability of a use by attracting customers and adding to the enjoyment of the pedestrian’s experience on the street. The city’s architectural zoning regulations, which regulate all non-residential buildings in the city, do not currently address ground floor transparency. However, the city has negotiated minimum transparency requirements for buildings approved as part of planned unit developments that were located along streets where high pedestrian traffic was encouraged. Where regulated, recent mixed use development projects have provided between 60% to 70% minimum ground floor transparency for street facing facades. The city council is interested in establishing zoning requirements for transparency standards, and is discussing the issue on July 9, 2018. The staff report for that agenda item is attached to this report. Staff is recommending to council that planning commission review and make recommendations for any proposed transparency requirements. During the July 11, 2018 planning commission meeting, staff will recap city council’s discussion and will ask for planning commission’s feedback and guidance regarding transparency regulations. Next steps: Staff will respond to planning commission feedback, and provide further research and draft an ordinance for planning commission’s review. Attachments: Transparency Standards city council staff report for July 9, 2018 Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meeting: Study session Meeting date: July 9, 2018 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements Recommended action: Direct the planning commission to explore and propose a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding minimum transparency standards for street facing facades on the ground floor. Policy consideration: What are the city council goals in relation to the transparency standards? Are there specific areas in the city or specific types of developments that are of higher priority for implementing transparency standards? Summary: The city currently regulates the amount of ground-floor transparency in commercial buildings to increase the interaction between the internal spaces of a building with the public realm. The goals of this regulation are to allow people inside buildings to easily observe street life and to improve public safety. Transparency regulations are particularly important in areas where there is high pedestrian traffic, as transparency can help create a vibrant street. Ground floor windows and transparent doors may also strengthen the commercial viability of a use by attracting customers and adding to the enjoyment of the pedestrian’s experience on the street. The city’s architectural zoning regulations, which regulate all non-residential buildings in the city, do not currently address ground-floor transparency. However, the city has negotiated minimum transparency requirements for buildings approved as part of planned unit developments that were located along streets where high pedestrian traffic was encouraged. Recent mixed-use development projects have provided between 60% to 70% minimum ground floor transparency for street-facing facades. This can be a simple requirement that windows cannot be covered greater than 10%. However, there are also many nuances to consider in regard to ground-floor transparency, including but not limited to: minimum window requirements at the pedestrian level, depth of transparency (ability to see into the building for a certain number of feet), light reflectance standards, use requirements, and guidelines allowing for the display of merchandise. Also, there are competing interests where interior layouts that work best for some businesses are in direct conflict with such transparency requirements. Staff is requesting city council provide direction regarding the policy considerations listed above and refer this matter to the planning commission for discussion and recommendations. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study session meeting of July 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements Discussion Background: Some cities around the country regulate ground floor transparency in mixed-use and pedestrian oriented neighborhoods. Requirements generally focus on the street-facing pedestrian zone, and include standards for minimum transparency, maximum reflectance, window coverage (signs), and limits for the storage of equipment. Most cities allow the display of merchandise. In some cases, these requirements are included as part of a form-based code, which specifically regulates the form of buildings and the interaction of a building with the public realm (i.e. streets and sidewalks). Historically St. Louis Park has not regulated ground floor transparency except for developments that have been approved as part of a planned unit development (PUD) including but not limited to: The West End, 4800 Excelsior, The Elmwood, PLACE, and the Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center. These projects have provided a minimum of 60% to 70% ground-floor transparency. Limits have been placed on window signs, and include a minimum depth of visibility into the building. These transparency standards have been negotiated by staff, which has often been a challenge as retailers are primarily focused on the layout of their spaces within the building, with less attention paid to the public realm. One exception is that licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages include the following restrictions on covering over windows and doors: 1) the total area of signs in windows shall not exceed 50% of the total area of windows fronting a street; 2) signs shall not be displayed on doors; and 3) doors shall not be included in the window area for purposes of determining the 50% maximum coverage. The West End: •60% glazing for street facing facades o Excluded the grocery store •Max 10% opaque or with signs •Visibility 3 ft. depth •Entrance location standards 4800 Excelsior •Primarily transparent at pedestrian level o Applied to Excelsior Blvd frontage only •Max 10% opaque •Visibility 3 ft. depth Study session meeting of July 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements The Elmwood: •65% transparency street facing facades •Max 10% opaque •Active uses minimum 15 ft. •Visibility 10 ft. depth PLACE •60% transparency street facing facades (+woonerf) •Max 10% opaque •Active uses minimum 15 ft. •Visibility 10 ft. depth Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center •70% transparency for street facing facades •Max 10% opaque •Active uses minimum 15 ft. •Visibility 10 ft. depth Present considerations: The city would like to explore the possibility of adding new zoning code architectural design transparency standards. The standards would likely apply to ground level, street-facing facades, especially in areas with high pedestrian activity. The goal of the transparency standards would include encouraging more active, vibrant, and safe street life. Transparency standards may not be desirable in all areas of the community, especially in industrial areas or commercial zones that are more auto-centric including larger commercial retail and grocery stores, however more research and discussion is needed. Study session meeting of July 9, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Zoning guidelines for transparency requirements Also, some exceptions or alternatives may need to be considered to address “back of house” operations, privacy concerns, and product sensitivities. Understanding specifically what city council hopes to achieve with transparency standards will help the planning commission and staff direct research and energies appropriately as we develop the zoning code amendment for council’s consideration. Are there areas in the city or specific types of developments that are of higher priority for city council with regards to transparency standards? Next steps: Staff will present the city council’s input to the planning commission and undertake a review of ground-floor transparency standards in the coming months, and ask that planning commission propose a zoning text amendment for city council’s consideration. Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Study Session Item 3 3. Mixed Use Zoning District Concept Review RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to the mixed- use zoning ordinance. SUMMARY: Historically, the City of St. Louis Park rezoned properties to MX - Mixed Use zoning district and applied a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for mixed use buildings. In 2015, the City of St. Louis Park adopted a specific PUD zoning district, reducing the effectiveness and usefulness of the existing MX district. As of today, there are no undeveloped (or underdeveloped) parcels zoned for mixed-use, so a rezoning would be required. A component of the St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan is the re-guiding of several properties on the Future Land Use Map in the city to mixed use. An update to the mixed use zoning ordinance is a high priority for the planning commission and city council. In August 2017, staff kicked off the process to update the existing MX district to provide a zoning district that allows a citywide standard for mixed-use developments that are site and context sensitive. In past study sessions, planning commission has discussed options regarding building orientation, height, and transitions between residential districts. The commission also discussed building setbacks, bonuses, building articulation standards, and briefly discussed allowed uses. Commissioners expressed support for the concept of bonuses and hesitancy about becoming too prescriptive regarding building design. The MX district update was placed on hold temporary due to the planning commission’s review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It has been several months since a discussion on the MX district has occurred, and there are new planning commission members that have not participated in previous discussions. Study Session July 11: Staff will present a recap of the commission’s previous discussions regarding proposed regulations for mixed use properties. NEXT STEPS: At future planning commission study sessions, staff will present additional MX district code options for the commission’s consideration, including but not limited to: • Permitted uses • Height bonuses • Draft ordinance language Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor