Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/01/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. JANUARY 7, 2015 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of November 19, 2014 3. Hearings A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Hwy. 7 & Glenhurst Location: 3907, 3915 Hwy. 7; 3031 Glenhurst Ave.; 3914, 3918 31st St. W. Applicant: Bader Development Case No.: 14-28-CP B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Outside storage in IP District Applicant: James T. Smith Case No.: 14-29-ZA C. Major amendment to Planned Unit Development for Setback Location: 5305 Wayzata Boulevard Applicant: TPI Hospitality Case No.: 14-27-PUD D. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Planned Unit Development Ordinance Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 14-25-ZA 4. Other Business A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aides for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/924-2575 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Agenda Item 3A. 3A. Hwy. 7 and Glenhurst – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3907 & 3915 Highway 7; 3031 Glenhurst Avenue; 3914 & 3918 West 31st Street Case No.: 14-28-CP Applicant: Bader Development Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: COM – Commercial RM – Medium Density Residential Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation: MX – Mixed Use Proposed Project Density: 69 units per acre Existing Zoning: C2 – Commercial R-4 Multiple-Family Residence Property Owner: 3907 Hwy 7 – George West 3915 Hwy 7 – Frayne Johnson 3031 Glenhurst Ave – Steven Klumpner 3914 W 31st St – Amber Ramirez-Acosta 3918 W 31st St – Troy Gambucci Description of Request: Bader Development has requested an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 3907 & 3915 Hwy 7, 3031 Glenhurst Ave, and 3914 & 3918 W 31st St. If recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, this amendment would: • Modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for these parcels from Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use. • Allow the applicant to request a rezoning of the property as a Planned Unit Development. • Allow the applicant to combine the parcels through a preliminary and final plat. The combined size of all parcels is 2.23 acres, including the existing alley which the developer would request the City to vacate. The development proposal for the site includes a mixed-use building consisting of 150 units and 10,000 square feet of office space. The building would be a total of five stories tall at Highway 25 and three stories above grade at West 31st Street. Concept development images and a map depicting the Comprehensive Plan map amendment are attached. Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Background: Bader Development approached the owners of the subject properties to assemble a site that would accommodate their development concept. The properties include a mix of residential and commercial buildings, including the Battlefield Books and Memorabilia Store and the ASAP Printing building. As has been discussed at previous study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council, the ASAP building has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The current property owner has chosen not to pursue listing the property, and Bader Development has indicated they are not interested in pursuing listing the property; a decision that lies with the property owner. Staff and the developer have had discussions about allowing various historic entities to document the building if the proposed development were to proceed. The developer has scheduled a neighborhood meeting for January 6, 2015. A summary of the neighborhood meeting will be presented by Staff to the Planning Commission. Site Conditions: The combined parcels are 2.23 acres in size and feature two single family homes, a multi-family building, the Battlefield Books and Memorabilia Store and the ASAP Printing building . The single-family homes are one story and the multi-family building is two to three stories. The commercial buildings are both two story buildings. The proposed development is in the Triangle Neighborhood and is within one-half mile of the proposed West Lake Southwest LRT station, and just over one-half mile from the Beltline Southwest LRT station. The site is also served by the numbers 17 and 25 bus routes. The site lies between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue just south of the Highway 25 (CSAH 25) frontage road. As a note: Highway 7 was the previous designation of this road, but it was turned over to Hennepin County and the current road designation is County Road 25. The Minneapolis City Boundary is on the east side of the site, running down France Avenue. There are single- story houses and a three-story apartment building across 31st Street to the south of the redevelopment site, single-story houses and Vescio’s restaurant to the west of the site, and a four-story apartment building across France Avenue to the east. An alley divides the redevelopment site connecting France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue. The property north of the alley is zoned C-2 Commercial, and the properties south of the alley are zoned R-4 Multiple Family Residence. The site slopes from W 31st Street down toward the Highway 25 frontage road, with the most significant grade change, approximately 15 feet, between 31st Street and the southern portion of the parking lot behind the ASAP building. The site lies within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Development Proposal: The developer proposes to remove all of the existing buildings and residences and replace them with a residential development that includes some commercial space. The development concept consists of approximately 150 apartment units, including 30 affordable units, and 10,000 square feet of ground-floor office space along with underground and surface parking. The proposed building would front on CSAH 25 and be five stories tall, with the fifth story stepped back from Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 the street. The building would be three stories tall facing W 31st Street, with the building being built into this hillside. Graphics and plans depicting the proposed buildings are included as attachments. The current site plan indicates the arrangement and footprint of the buildings as well as parking areas. The developer is working with an engineer to evaluate stormwater management on site and is communicating with the City’s Water Resources Manager. Parking for residents would be provided in a structured ramp, that would be primarily underground. The proposal also includes on-site surface parking for the office space and guest parking. As proposed, the development exceeds the parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance, with a total of 285 spaces while 265 are required. The development is eligible for a transit reduction to the parking requirements for the office use. The reduction is 10%, which would decrease the total required parking spaces to 261. Parking access is proposed from France Avenue or Glenhurst Avenue with a driveway connecting between the two streets. City staff is also discussing the possibility of connecting France Avenue to 31st Street. This connection is being considered as a way to provide better circulation through this area for vehicular traffic as well as for providing smaller block sizes for pedestrian and bike circulation. Further discussion of this connection will take place, and details worked out, if the project moves forward. The concept site plan was designed to improve the appearance along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road by bringing the buildings closer to the street and placing parking areas toward the rear of the site. The building is also designed to be sensitive to the nature of the adjacent uses by placing the taller portions of the building at CSAH 25 and the shorter portions of the building across from the 1 – 1.5 story houses. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for residential development at a density of 69 units per acre, which is considered High Density (RH) in the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the proposed inclusion of an office use in the project, a change to MX – Mixed Use would be most appropriate. General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The City’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested change. The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets many of the goals found in the Land Use chapter, including: - human scale development - increase mix of housing types and housing choices Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 - promote medium and high density residential development near commercial centers - ensure that new medium and high density residential development is near transit service Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for additional housing units, including affordable units, in an area that is well served by transit, and along a vibrant commercial corridor. The general area of the development proposal consists of a mix of single-family houses, smaller multi-family houses, such as duplexes, three to four story apartment complexes and commercial buildings. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing types. The proposed development would provide higher density apartment housing, including affordable units, in a building that is respectful of the scale of the surround structures. Availability of Infrastructure The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development concept and found the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. A traffic study is currently underway to review the projected potential impacts of the development on and capacity of adjacent roadways. The Comprehensive Plan identifies CSAH 25 as an “A Minor Augmentor”, which should have more than sufficient capacity for the proposed development. A detailed traffic study report will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. As mentioned previously, Staff will also continue to discuss the possibility of connecting France Avenue to West 31st Street. Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood Removal of the existing buildings will change the character of the site. The proposed development generally follows the height, density and ground floor area ratio of the RC Zoning District, which has similar dimensional standards as the C2 District, of which a portion of the site is currently zoned. The current development concept includes stepping back the upper floors of the building as well as building walk-up units along France Avenue and West 31st Street in order to create a more pedestrian friendly environment and to provide a more interesting building façade. It is anticipated that the property would be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The most noticeable impact to the area would be the addition of a great number of residents. Having more residents in the neighborhood will provide more activity than strictly retail and low-density residential housing. The proposed development concept minimizes the impacts of the building on the neighborhood with various architectural solutions, such as the inclusion of walk-up units, and stepping back upper stories of the building, and the site design provides an excess of parking over City requirements. Public Process: • October 13, 2014: Council report at Study Session • November 10, 2014: Council discussion at Study Session • November 24, 2014: Council report at Study Session • December 17, 2014: Planning Commission discussion at Study Session • January 6, 2015: Neighborhood Meeting, City Hall Community Room • January 7, 2015: Planning Commission Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 • January 12, 2015: Council discussion at Study Session • January 20, 2015: Council action on Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Request After the Planning Commission reviews the request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map and holds a public hearing, the request will go before the City Council. If the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved, the developer intends to apply for a PUD, a plat and a request for a vacation of the alley. Summary: Requested is a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment to change the property at 3907 & 3915 Highway 7, 3031 Glenhurst Avenue, and 3914 & 3918 West 31st Street from COM – Commercial and RM – Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to review of other applications that would allow the developer’s proposal to move forward. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment. The proposed development provides for additional housing in the project area and meets the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of increasing medium-density and high-density housing near transit service. Attachments: Aerial Photo Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Existing – Proposed Project Area Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Proposed – Proposed Project Area Concept Development Plans Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 6 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Aerial Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 7 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Existing Agenda Item No. 3A – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 8 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Proposed Saint Louis Park, Minnesota November 4, 2014 113-0098.0 BADER - HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE BUILDING CONCEPT Saint Louis Park, Minnesota December 1, 2014 13-098.00 HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE SITE PLAN - NOT TO SCALE NORTH BIKE STORAGE WALK-UP UNITS OFFICE AMENITY POOL OFFICE PARKING WALK-UP UNITS LOBBY RESIDENTIAL PARKING BELOW MN 7 SER V I C E R O A D GLENHURST AVE SFRANCE AVE SWEST 31ST STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON CITY PROPERTY Saint Louis Park, Minnesota November 4, 2014 113-0098.0 BADER - HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE SITE SECTIONS 64’32’32’36’ 64’49’32’ GLENHURST AVEFRANCE AVE 31ST ST HWY 7 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota December 1, 2014 13-098.00 HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE AERIAL VIEW Saint Louis Park, Minnesota December 1, 2014 13-098.00 HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE AERIAL VIEW Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Agenda Item 3B 3B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Outside storage in the IP District Case No.: 14-29-ZA Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Section 36-4 pertaining to the Accessory use or structure definition, to Section 36-243(c)(6) pertaining to Parking lots as an exclusive principal land use in the Industrial Park Zoning District, and to Section 36-243(d) to include outdoor storage as a Conditional Use. REQUEST: Mr. James T. Smith (Applicant) is an Attorney representing Mr. Martin Bell. Mr. Bell owns property on Florida Ave in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. He is requesting three amendments to the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the intent of the zoning ordinance and to allow Outdoor Storage as a land use permitted by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Industrial Park zoning district. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Three amendments are proposed. A summary of the proposed amendments is below, and the complete text is attached. 1. Amend Section 36-4 to delete the word “land” and replace with the word “parcel”. During the enforcement action described below, Mr. Bell argued that the use of the word “land” gave him the right to conduct an accessory use on any property he owns in the City, not just the property on which the principal use is being conducted. As noted below, the City Attorney, City Council, and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) disagreed with this interpretation. 2. Amend Section 36-243(c)(6) to add language specifically stating that accessory uses, such as outdoor storage, are not permitted as an accessory use to the Parking Lot use. The Applicant gives two options to consider. a. All accessory uses are prohibited. b. Only outdoor storage is prohibited as an accessory use, other accessory uses may be permitted as allowed elsewhere in the code. 3. Amend Section 36-243(d) to allow outdoor storage as a conditional use. This would allow a property owner to apply for a conditional use permit to conduct outdoor storage as a principal land use (the only land use occurring on the property). Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 2 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 ANALYSIS: The requested amendments would allow Mr. Smith’s client, Martin Bell, to be able to conduct outdoor storage at his property located on Florida Ave. The text amendments, if approved, would also allow outdoor storage as a principal use on all properties in the city zoned Industrial Park. The potential broad impacts of that decision need to be considered. In other words a parcel in the Industrial Park district could be used for outdoor storage without another accompanying use such as office or manufacturing also occurring on the property. Outdoor Storage: Outdoor Storage is defined in the zoning ordinance as follows: The receiving, keeping and shipping of goods and materials outside of an enclosed building where outdoor activity includes only the unloading, loading, and keeping of materials. This use may include storage yards for contractors, equipment, lumber, landscaping materials, construction materials and shipping materials. Storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles or other materials typically associated with a junkyard, salvage yard or auto reduction plant are excluded. Potential Impacts of Proposed Amendments: (1) Adverse impacts typically associated with outdoor storage includes: • Noise coming from running heavy equipment, materials being moved around or dropped, and back-up alarms. The noise can be a problem in the early morning, especially for contractor yards where the contractor has to pick up equipment or materials before going to the worksite. • Odors from the machinery, typically diesel. The smell of diesel equipment running one hundred feet from a residential property may impact a person’s ability to enjoy their backyard or force people to keep their windows closed in the summer. • Visual impacts include the sight of materials and equipment. These items are not always kept in an orderly manner. Weeds will frequently grow in seldom used areas of the storage lot. (2) There is also the potential opportunity cost of land used for outdoor storage rather than a more desirable industrial use. (3) Outdoor storage as a principal use may lack the monitoring, security, and upkeep that is typical of an industrial use with employees on-site. PURPOSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS: There are two industrial zoning districts, the Industrial Park and General Industrial. The purpose of each as stated in the zoning district is listed below: The purpose of the Industrial Park district is to provide locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in such activities as assembly, storage, warehousing and light manufacturing which are not typically associated with high levels of noise, soot, odors and other potential nuisance impacts upon adjoining properties in an industrial park setting. The Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 3 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 requirements of this district include relatively low maximum floor area and impervious surface ratios. The purpose of the I-G general industrial district is to provide locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in such activities as manufacturing, processing, assembly, storage and warehousing. The zoning ordinance meets the purpose of both districts by limiting the uses allowed in each district, and by proximity of the districts to residential properties. Segregating Uses: Both districts are intended to provide opportunities for manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, and storage. However, the Industrial Park district is intended to prohibit uses that generate more of an adverse impact on neighboring properties typically associated with noise, odors and other nuisances. The table attached to this report shows all the uses permitted in both districts. The difference between the two is highlighted, and it clearly shows that uses typically associated with noise, odors and other impacts such as visual blight are kept to the General Industrial district. These uses include autobody repair, composting and auto repair. To this end, outdoor storage is allowed as a principal use in the General Industrial district, but only as an accessory use in the Industrial Park district. Meaning, a parcel in the General Industrial district can be used entirely as outdoor storage, but it cannot occupy an area on the lot that is more than 25% of the floor area of the building on the lot. Proximity to Residential: Since the uses allowed in the Industrial Park district have less of an impact on neighboring properties than those in the General Industrial district, the Industrial Park district is typically located in closer proximity to residential properties than the General Industrial district. In many cases, the Industrial Park district shares a property line with single family residents, while the General Industrial district is either not adjacent to single family residence, or is separated by a physical barrier such as an elevated railroad track or highway. This is illustrated on the attached zoning district map. Allowing higher impact uses such as outdoor storage in the Industrial Park district would create nuisance situations for the neighboring uses, especially adjacent single family uses. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: Enforcement Action: One of the properties owned by Mr. Bell is the subject of a zoning enforcement action. Mr. Bell recently leased a vacant parcel (2211 Florida Ave) to Tim’s Tree Service to store equipment and materials outside. Since this property is otherwise vacant, the outdoor storage constitutes a principal use. Outdoor storage is not permitted as a principal use in the Industrial Park zoning district. Therefore, Mr. Bell and the owner of the tree service were directed to cease the activity. Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 4 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Mr. Bell appealed the determination to the BOZA, where the BOZA upheld Staff’s determination that the use is a principal use, and therefore, illegal. Mr. Bell then appealed BOZA’s decision to the City Council and the Council confirmed the BOZA decision. Shortly after the Council decision, staff again notified Mr. Bell and Tim’s Tree Service that the use is not permitted, and must cease. Mr. Bell responded to the notice with this request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow outdoor storage as a conditional use in the IP zoning district. Allowing outdoor storage as a conditional use would allow Tim’s Tree Service to apply for a CUP, and remain if the CUP is approved. Zoning Studies: There were two different zoning studies conducted in 1989 and 1991. The studies focused on the Edgewood/Florida Ave industrial area, which is the same industrial area where Mr. Bell would like to operate outdoor storage as a principal use, and there is currently an enforcement action pending. Both studies included a task force made up of property owners from the industrial area and from the adjacent residential area. The 1991 task force utilized an official from the Minnesota Office of Dispute Resolution to mediate the discussions. Many of the issues discussed pertained to the impacts on the adjacent residential properties resulting from uses conducted outside a building. The result of the studies was to rezone the Edgewood/Florida Ave industrial area from IG to Industrial Park, which it is currently zoned. The decision was made to rezone the area to Industrial Park instead of General Industrial because the impacts of uses permitted in the General Industrial Park are too great for adjacent residential areas. This decision was mutually agreed upon by the industrial and residential property owners making up the task force. RECOMMENDATION: The zoning ordinance currently does a good job of mitigating the impacts of outdoor storage by allowing it as a principal use in the General Industrial district only, and limiting the properties zoned General Industrial to those that are not in close proximity to single family residential. Any amendments to the zoning ordinance to allow outdoor storage in the Industrial Park would be contrary to the studies already conducted and the intent of the zoning ordinance to separate incompatible uses. Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Outdoor Storage and the Accessory Use definition. Attachments: Draft Zoning Amendments Table – Comparison of IP and IG zoning districts Zoning Map Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 5 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 DRAFT ZONING AMENDMENT AND APPLICANT COMMENTS Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 6 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 7 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 8 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 TABLE – COMPARISON OF IP AND IG ZONING DISTRICTS Comparison of Permitted Uses in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Districts P=Permitted PC=Permitted with Conditions CUP=Permitted by Conditional Use Permit PUD=Planned Unit Development A=Accessory Use Use Industrial Park General Industrial Park and open space. P P Police and fire stations. P P Post offices. P P Business/trade school/college P P Parcel delivery services P P Recycling operations P P Showrooms P P Warehouse and storage P P Transit stations P P Studios P P Freight terminals - P Group day care/nursery schools PC PC Public service structures PC PC Utility substations PC PC Communication towers PC PC Manufacturing/processing PC P Parking lots as an exclusive principal land use PC PC Parking ramps as principal structure PC PC High impact sexually-oriented business PC PC Medical, optical and dental laboratories PC PC Catering PC P Brewery PC P Animal handling - PC Autobody/painting - PC Composting operations - PC Motor vehicle service and repair - PC Heliport CUP CUP Office CUP PC Agenda Item No 3B – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Outdoor storage in the IP zoning district. Page 9 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 More than one principal building CUP CUP Group Daycare/Nursery Schools CUP CUP Communication towers more than 110 feet in height but not to exceed 199 feet in height CUP CUP Anaerobic digester - CUP Retail other than accessory PUD - Service PUD - Office, provided that it occupies less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the development. A A Parking lots A A Parking ramps A A Railroad spurs A A Outdoor storage A PC Repair and maintenance of motor vehicles and equipment incidental to the conduct of the principal use A A Food service A A Retail sales limited to a maximum of 15 percent of the gross floor area of the development A A Large item retail sales limited to a maximum of 15% of the gross floor area of the development A A Motor fuel station - A Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Agenda Item 3C 3C. Homewood Suites Hotel – Major Amendment to Planned Unit Development-Setback. 5305 Wayzata Blvd. Case No.: 14-27-PUD Applicant: TPI Hospitality Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the Homewood Suites Final PUD to allow an 18 foot side setback for an existing trash room. Comprehensive Plan: Office Zoning: O-Office Site Area: 6.2 acres (270,070 square feet) Description of Request: TPI Hospitality (applicant) is requesting a major amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow a side setback of 18 feet for an existing trash room instead of the previously approved 25 feet for the existing Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel. Background: 5305/5353 Wayzata Boulevard is a 6.2 acre site located at the southeast corner of Park Place Boulevard and I-394. The site was approved on August 20, 2007 as a PUD consisting of the existing Associated Bank building and a proposed Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel. The hotel was constructed immediately after the PUD was approved. The seven-story, 124-room hotel was originally approved with a side setback of 25 feet on the east property line however; the plans submitted with the building permit application for the construction of the project vary from those approved in the original PUD. The construction plans had discrepancies among the elevation, erosion control, and site plan sheets; in which the side setback shown varied from the approved 25 feet to the existing 18 feet. The noncompliant setback was discovered when the property owner started a refinancing process and a zoning company noticed the difference in the existing setback from the approved PUD. Amending the PUD to allow a side setback of 18 feet on the east side of the property for the trash room only would bring this property into compliance with the PUD. Zoning Analysis: The property owner is not proposing further work to be done to the property; only to amend the final PUD to allow for a setback of 18 feet instead of the required 25 feet for the trash room. The existing building does not encroach into the existing easement on the east side of the property. This change will not affect the existing parking, floor area ratio, height of the building, shadowing, noise, screening, or Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) on site. Agenda Item No. 3C. Hilton Homewood Suites – Major Amendment to PUD for side setback Page 2 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 The enclosed trash room portion of the building extends out from the principal structure. It is this portion of the building that encroaches 7 feet into the approved side yard. The dimensional standards for the Office district, under section 36-223(g)(7) of the zoning code, states “the minimum depth of the required side yard of buildings under 40 feet in height shall be 15 feet on one side and half the building height on the other.” Although most of the hotel building is seven stories tall, the height of the trash enclosure portion of the building is only 12 feet. At 12 feet tall, the Office district standards would only require a 15-foot setback on one side of the building and a 6-foot setback on the other. Staff finds the proposed 18 foot setback is consistent with the intent of the Office district requirements and does not negatively impact the site plan. PUD Modifications: The PUD ordinance allows certain zoning standards to be modified. Hilton Homewood Suites received approval for a reduced side yard setback for the six-story office building, based on the 2007 site plan. This request would allow the side yard setback to be reduced from the required 25 feet to the existing 18 feet to accommodate the existing trash enclosure located at the northeast corner of the building. This change will not negatively impact nearby properties, and staff supports the request. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Major Amendment to a PUD to allow an 18 foot side yard for the existing one-story tall trash room, instead of the previously approved 25 foot side yard, at 5305 Wayzata Boulevard, subject to the following condition: The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official Exhibits. Attachments: Aerial Photo Building Elevations (original official exhibit with staff notations) Site and Landscape Plan (proposed and existing) Prepared by: Nicole Mardell, Community Development Intern Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Agenda Item No. 3C. Hilton Homewood Suites – Major Amendment to PUD for side setback Page 3 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 25.0 feet required by PUD 18.0 feet requested in amendment Aerial Photo Planning Commission Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 Agenda Item 3D. 3D. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Planned Unit Development Ordinance Case No.: 14-25-ZA Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments pertaining to Planned Unit Developments. REQUEST: Staff is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to: 1. Create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Code. PUDs would now be approved as an ordinance. 2. Revise the text and format of the PUD ordinance to provide more clarity and consistency with other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Revise the PUD ordinance providing the Planning Commission and City Council with greater discretion in approving PUD applications. BACKGROUND: This item was discussed at the Planning Commission’s study session on November 5, 2014 and has been discussed by the City Council on October 27 and December 8, 2014. The City has considered revising its PUD ordinance for several years, largely at the suggestion of the City Attorney. Currently, PUDs are processed and approved by resolution, a quasi-judicial action, and they are more similar to a conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed change would require each PUD to be approved as a distinct zoning ordinance, which is an entirely legislative action. Each PUD would be approved in the same manner as other ordinances, and a PUD designation would be placed on the zoning map. Any development approved through this process would become its own stand-alone zoning district, with all zoning requirements for the development provided in the ordinance approving the development. This approach eliminates the need to process a separate rezoning or any variances at the time of a PUD request. Since PUDs would now be approved as a rezoning to a unique district, references to “Uses Permitted by PUD” will be removed from the other zoning districts. Staff also proposes revisions throughout the PUD ordinance which reorganize several sections and eliminate redundant text. These revisions are intended to clarify regulations and provide consistent language and formatting with other sections of the Zoning Code. Revisions related to the policies and procedures for approving PUDs are also being proposed. Proposed procedural changes and policy changes are discussed below. Procedural Changes Staff are proposing changes to how amendments are classified to reflect the nature of past amendment requests and in order to simplify the amendment process. Staff have reviewed several other cities’ PUD ordinances and have talked with staff from those cities. The Plymouth Agenda Item No. 3D. – PUD Ordinance Amendments Page 2 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 PUD ordinance has been one that is most frequently referenced for revisions to our PUD ordinance, and has provided guidance on approval and amendment changes. Preliminary and Final PUD process and approval: The current PUD section includes a preliminary PUD and final PUD process. There is also an exception which allows preliminary and final PUDs to be processed simultaneously. The preliminary PUD currently requires a public hearing with the Planning Commission and a recommendation is made to the City Council. The final PUD is also considered by the Planning Commission with final action taken by the City Council, but does not require a public hearing. The proposed PUD changes still include a preliminary and final PUD process, and more clearly articulates that the preliminary and final PUD may be processed simultaneously. The preliminary and final PUD will follow similar procedures as the existing processes, but now the preliminary PUD will be approved by resolution and the final PUD will be approved by ordinance. If the preliminary and final PUD are being processed simultaneously, it will follow the same procedure as a preliminary PUD, requiring a public hearing, but be approved as an ordinance. Amendments: The current PUD section defines major and minor amendments, and lists individual items under each amendment type. Administrative approvals is also specified; only items specified in the development plan as eligible for administrative approval can be processed adminstratively. Currently, major amendments are considered in the same manner as preliminary PUDs, which includes a public hearing at the Planning Commission, and the City Council denies or approves the amendment. Minor amendments are considered only by the City Council, and administrative approvals are determined by the Zoning Administrator and Director of Community Development. Staff are proposing to reclassify all amendments as either administrative or major. Administrative amendments would now include proposed changes to: building dimensions or site modifications that are ten percent or less of the applicable measure. (i.e. ten percent change in feet related to a setback, or number of tree species related to landscaping) Major amendments would include any change to those same items that is greater than ten percent, items that the Zoning Administrator determines are major, which may include changes that fall below the ten percent threshold, and items that are specified as a major amendment in the development agreement. Major amendments would now constitute an ordinance amendment, requiring a public hearing at the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. Policy Changes There are two major policy changes included in the proposed revisions to the PUD ordinance. The first is related to permitted land uses, and the second is related to modifications of district regulations. Permitted land uses: Staff are proposing to allow a mix of land uses in any PUD as long as those uses are currently allowed in one of the City’s zoning districts. Staff have included the statement that the following uses are prohibited in any PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan Agenda Item No. 3D. – PUD Ordinance Amendments Page 3 Meeting Date: January 7, 2015 agency; Sexually Oriented Business. Additionally, other uses can be specifically excluded from a PUD district at the Council’s discretion. Modifications: The proposed PUD revisions would also change the way modifications are handled. There are currently eight specified allowable modifications in the PUD section: distance from property lines, distance from other buildings, building height, density, ground floor area, floor area ratio, Designed Outdoor Recreation Area, and parking. Of these allowable modifications, the density, ground floor area, Designed Outdoor Recreation Area and parking, limit the degree they can be increased or decreased from the base regulations. The distance from property lines is also limited when a PUD is adjacent to single family residential. Staff are proposing changes which allows the Council to have greater discretion in how much any performance standard or dimensional standard can be changed from the base requirements. Staff are proposing the following language to limit modifications for only the following items: 1. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yard of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in height if the portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear property lines a distance equal to the additional height. 2. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance. 3. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district. 4. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Travel Demand Management District. The Planning Commission and City Council then evaluate each proposed PUD on its own merits, and determine what performance and dimensional standards are appropriate as long as a PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss these proposed changes at a study session on January 12, 2015 with the first reading on January 20, 2015. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Planned Unit Developments. Attachments: Draft PUD Ordinance Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor 1 ORDINANCE NO.______ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 36 shall have the following Sections renumbered as follows: Secs. 36-6—36-30. Reserved shall become Secs. 36-6—36-29. Reserved Sec. 36-31. Interpretation; procedures. shall become Sec. 36-30 Interpretation; procedures. Sec. 36-32. Registration of land use. shall become Sec. 36-31. Registration of land use. SECTION 2. Chapter 36 is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-32. Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. (a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of a PUD District is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater flexibility in the development of land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The intent of this section is to: (1) Allow for the greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land development. (2) Promote higher standards of site and building design. (3) Promote a more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high-quality development at a lesser cost. (4) Provide for the establishment of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made more usable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. (5) Allow modifications to the strict application of regulations of conventional zoning districts that are in harmony with the goals, policies and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. (6) Encourage a more creative and efficient use of land. (7) Preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics, including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and access. 2 (8) Ensure integrated pedestrian facilities to and within a PUD district. (9) Provide for improved connections to mass transit facilities. (10) Encourage an increase in the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing. (11) Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under this Chapter. (b) Application of section provisions. The provisions of this section shall be administered as follows: (1) No PUD shall be approved on property guided by the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development. (2) PUD Regulations. A PUD district may incorporate the regulations of one or more other zoning districts as determined by the zoning administrator and designated in the ordinance creating the district. (3) Modifications. A PUD district may modify any provision of this Chapter except for the following: a. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yards of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in height if the portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear property lines a distance equal to the additional height. b. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance. c. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district as designated in the approving ordinance. d. PUDs shall comply with the Travel Demand Management District. (4) Permitted land uses. Any land use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be allowed in a PUD district. Residential and non-residential uses may be included in a single PUD district. The PUD ordinance shall identify all land uses allowed in the PUD district. Any change from the uses listed in the PUD ordinance shall be considered an amendment to the PUD and shall follow the procedures specified in this section. The following uses are prohibited in a PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan agency; Sexually Oriented Business (5) Minimum area. A PUD district must consist of a parcel or contiguous parcels of land at least two acres or more in size. Tracts of less than two acres may be approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that a project of superior design can 3 be achieved or that greater compliance with comprehensive plan goals and policies can be attained through use of a PUD. (6) PUDs shall be subject to the imposition of additional requirements when, in the opinion of the City Council, such additional requirements are necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety, neighborhood character and/or to achieve the objectives contained in Section 36-1. (c) Building and site design. The City Council shall find that the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD plan will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan before a PUD plan may be approved. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. (4) Green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy shall be incorporated into the project if feasible. (5) If a PUD has been requested that involves staged construction or in two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall demonstrate that each stage or phase is capable of independently addressing and meeting these criteria. (6) More than one building may be placed on one lot in a PUD. (7) All off-street loading facilities, including loading debris, shall be completely contained within a building. (d) Submission requirements and procedure. (1) Planned unit development. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and considered according to the requirements of this section. (2) Pre-Application Conference. Before filing an application for approval of a PUD, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by City Staff. Staff may schedule a review of the concept plan by the Planning Commission and/or City Council to obtain nonbinding comments on its merits. 4 (3) Preliminary PUD plan. A complete application for a preliminary PUD plan shall include all of the following information: a. An application and payment of required application fee. b. If land encompassed within a proposed PUD is to be platted, replatted or subdivided, all information required for consideration and approval of a preliminary plat is also required in accordance with the subdivision ordinance, which review shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. c. A general development plan including the following: 1. Site conditions and existing development on the subject property and immediately adjacent properties. 2. The proposed use of all areas of the site. 3. The proposed density, type, size and location of all dwelling units, if dwelling units are proposed. 4. The general size, location and use of any proposed nonresidential buildings on the site. 5. All public streets, entrance and exit drives, and walkway locations. 6. Parking areas locations and calculations. 7. Landscaped areas and calculations. 8. Parks and open space, areas used for DORA, public spaces and common areas. 9. Site dimensions and building setbacks. 10. Building elevations and materials. 11. Typical floor plan and room plan. 12. Generalized drainage and utility plan. 13. Erosion control plan. 14. Storm water management plan and calculations. 15. Any other information which the City may request. 16. Acreage or square footage of individual land uses and DORA on the site. 5 d. Generalized staging plan for the project, including the geographical sequence of construction and the number of dwelling units or square footage of nonresidential property to be constructed in each stage. e. Traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation from the site at full development, the effect of such traffic on the level of service of nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements. f. A statement describing how the PUD will meet the stated purposes and objectives of this section. g. Environmental data which the City may deem necessary. At a minimum, this shall include a preliminary analysis of the probability of site contamination. (4) Final PUD plan. A complete application for a final PUD plan shall contain all of the following information: a. An application and payment of required application fee. b. A final plat which meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, and which creates condominium ownership, if required. c. A final site plan drawn to scale showing the location of all structures including their placement, setbacks, size and type as well as streets, parking areas and stall arrangement, walkways and other pedestrian facilities, parking calculations, and designed outdoor recreation area including public spaces and commons. (Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04) d. A final landscape plan showing the location, size, and species of all plant materials in accordance with section 36-364, a landscaping irrigation system plan, and all other non-vegetative landscaped features. e. A final utility plan showing the location and size of all on-site utilities and easements as well as storm water runoff calculations for both the predevelopment and post-development condition of the site. All private utilities shall be labeled as such. f. Building plans at a level of detail necessary to allow parking calculations to be made and building elevation drawings showing architectural details and proposed building materials, including the percentage of each building material coverage on each elevation. g. Floor plans and room plans. h. Photometric plan. 6 h. Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and bylaws of any proposed homeowners' association or other documents or contracts which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD. i. A final staging plan, if staging is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence and timing of development of the plan or portions thereof, including the estimated date of beginning and completion of each state. j. Any other project information required by the City. (5) Procedure. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and processed according to the requirements of this Section and Section 36-35 relating to amendments. No application for a final PUD shall be processed until the application for a preliminary PUD has been approved by the City Council unless the Zoning Administrator determines the preliminary PUD and final PUD may be processed simultaneously. a. Preliminary PUD. An application for preliminary approval of a PUD district shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include all required information comprising a Preliminary PUD plan. 1. Referral to Planning Commission. The completed application shall be reviewed by city staff and a report concerning the application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. 2. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with section 36-35. 3. Approval. The City Council may approve the preliminary PUD plan in whole or in part, may approve subject to conditions, may deny, or may continue consideration of the preliminary PUD plan for further investigation and hearing at a later date. 4. Denial. When a preliminary PUD plan has been denied by the City Council, the owner or applicant may not reapply for the same or similar development on the same property for the six-month period following the date of the denial. b. Final PUD. A final PUD district shall be approved by ordinance. An application for approval of a final PUD district shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include all data and plans comprising a Final PUD plan. 1. City Council action. The City Council shall consider the final PUD plan. If the City Council deems it necessary, it may set a public hearing for consideration of the final PUD plan. The City Council may deny the final PUD plan or may approve the final PUD plan in whole or in part. 7 2. No development activity may occur on a site for which a PUD has been applied, until a final PUD has been approved in whole or in part for that site. c. Preliminary and Final PUD combined. Application may be made to process a preliminary and final PUD simultaneously at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. 1. The application form for a final PUD shall be used. 2. The application shall include all data and plans comprising both a Preliminary PUD plan and Final PUD plan. 3. The approval procedure shall be the same as for a preliminary PUD, except that final approval shall be by ordinance. (6) Development agreement. a. The City may, at its sole discretion, require the owner and developer of a proposed PUD to execute a development agreement which may include, but not be limited to, all requirements of the final PUD plan as a condition to approval of a final PUD. b. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City, performance guarantee or cash escrow. The letter of credit shall be provided by a financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the City. The City may require that certain provisions and conditions of the development agreement be stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an amount sufficient to ensure the provision or development of improvement called for by the development agreement. (7) Operating and maintenance requirements for common areas. If certain land areas or structures within the PUD are designated for recreational use, public plazas, open areas or service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City that ensures the continued operation and maintenance of such areas or facilities in a manner suitable to the city. (8) Zoning map. All approved PUD districts shall be designated on the City's zoning map as it is revised from time to time. (9) Building Permit. No building permit shall be issued or development shall occur on land for which a PUD district has been approved which does not conform to the approved final plan. (10) Amendments. Proposed development of land for which a PUD has been approved or modifications to existing projects which does not conform to the approved final plan shall be processed as either an Administrative Amendment or Major 8 Amendment as defined in this subsection as determined by the Zoning Administrator. a. The Official Exhibits affected by the approved amendment shall be amended and replaced in their entirety. b. Administrative amendments. 1. Proposed changes to building dimensions involving ten percent or less of such dimension, proposed site modifications involving ten percent or less of the total existing site area, and proposed changes to other previously approved standards involving ten percent or less of such standard, which meet all ordinance requirements may be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to a building permit being issued and shall not require planning commission review or council approval, unless otherwise stated in the approved development agreement. 2. Administrative approval shall only be granted if the applicant has provided written notification to all owners of property within the PUD that such approval is being sought. The notification shall inform the property owners that approval of the proposed modification may be granted after ten calendar days have elapsed from the mailing date of the notice unless a property owner files an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within that time. If any such appeal is filed, the proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as a major amendment to the approved final plan. 3. Administrative approval may be obtained for modifications specified in the development agreement as requiring only administrative approval. 4. The Zoning Administrator may determine that a proposed amendment is a Major Amendment, even if it meets the criteria of an Administrative Amendment, and shall follow the procedure for major amendments in this Subsection. c. Major amendments. A major amendment to the approved final plan of the PUD shall be processed and approved in the same manner as a preliminary and final PUD, except that submission requirements shall be modified as appropriate by City Staff to reflect the nature of the proposed amendment. Major amendments shall include: 1. Any amendment that is not an Administrative Amendment. 2. Any amendment determined to be a Major Amendment by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Any amendment specified as such in the development agreement. 9 (11) Final Development Plan governs use of land. The subject area shall be permanently governed by the conditions, provisions and restrictions of the approving ordinance and final development plan. The ordinance and plan, as amended from time to time, shall govern the use of the land. SECTION 3. Section 36-111 is amended to add the following subsection: (7) Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, See Section 36-32. SECTION 4. Section 36-367 and subsections 36-115(e), 36-166(e), 36-167(e), 36-194(e), 36- 223(e), 36-233(e) and 36-243(e) are deleted in their entirety and then renumbered accordingly. SECTION 5. Divisions 10, 11, and 12 shall be amended as follows: Division 10. Floodplain Districts Planned Unit Development Districts Division 11. Travel Demand Management District Floodplain Districts Division 12. Travel Demand Management District SECTION 6. Secs. 36-268—36-290. Reserved shall be deleted from Division 9. M-X Mixed Use District and added to Division 10. Planned Unit Development Districts SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. Public Hearing January 7, 2015 First Reading January 20, 2015 Second Reading February 2, 2015 Date of Publication February 12, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect February 27, 2015 ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ATTEST: By: Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor Nancy Stroth, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney