Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/02/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 25, 2015 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of February 4, 2015 3. Public Hearing A. Conditional Use Permit – Excavation for new home Location: 4106 Forest Lane Applicant: Timothy Alt, ALTUS Architecture & Design Case No.: 15-02-CUP 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment STUDY SESSION AGENDA 1. SWLRT Update 2. Form-Based Code Update 3. South Side of Excelsior Zoning Discussion 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. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 4, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Alex Boyce, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of January 21, 2015 Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-2 (Kramer and Person abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Major amendment to Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Location: 6500 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital Case No.: 14-31-PUD Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Additions to the east and west towers of the hospital are proposed for patient room modernization, surgery expansion/renovation, and a small link addition above the Cancer Center. Mr. Walther spoke about Park Nicollet’s 2003 Master Plan for future expansions of the hospital campus. That plan included an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) worksheet. The proposed major amendment is a portion of Phase II improvements. Mr. Walther discussed building height variables for the west and east additions. He explained the proposed PUD modification necessary for a portion of the east addition. Commissioner Robertson asked about neighborhood concerns. Mr. Walther spoke about the list of issues and resolutions, included in the staff report, that have been laid out in two neighborhood meetings. He noted there have not been any strong concerns about the proposal. There have been some Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 4, 2015 Page 2 requests for additional views of the property. He said most of the remaining concerns are on-going regarding construction. Commissioner Kramer asked about any effects on light rail with any of the hospital construction. Bob Riesselman, Engineering Director, Park Nicollet Health Services, responded that future light rail will be several blocks north of the hospital and is independent of the proposed hospital construction. Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson said it is an exciting project. The only concerns are with the neighbors and over the years the hospital has shown great resolve in working with issues. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of a Major Amendment to the PUD for the Methodist Hospital Campus. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. B. Rezoning to POS Park and Open Space Location: Meadowbrook Golf Course Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 15-01-Z Alex Boyce, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. The rezoning of the golf course from R-1 Single Family Residential to Park and Open Space (POS) would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the current use of the property. Mr. Boyce stated the owner of the golf course, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), supports the rezoning as long as the current use is not in violation of the POS District, and if the property ceases to be used as a golf course other open space and recreational uses can be continued on the site. Commissioner Peilen spoke about recent closings of several golf courses in the metro area. She asked if there are any plans if the Meadowbrook site was no longer viable as a golf course. Mr. Boyce responded that he doesn’t believe there are any plans if that were to happen, but the site would remain as recreational or open space use under the POS district. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 4, 2015 Page 3 Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if only the St. Louis Park portion of the golf course is located in the FEMA Floodplain, making it undevelopable. Mr. Boyce stated the floodplain extends somewhat beyond the city boundary. Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the rezoning of Meadowbrook Golf Course from R-1 Single-Family Residential District to Park and Open Space District (POS). Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. C. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments - Planned Unit Developments Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 14-32-CP Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that recently the City revised the planned unit development (PUD) section of the Zoning Code. Similar amendments are now needed in the Comprehensive Plan to fully accomplish the policies intended with that PUD ordinance. Mr. Walther stated that the Comprehensive Plan text amendments specifically remove density limitations associated with the PUD process in the Land Use Plan and Plan Implementation chapters. Commissioner Johnston-Madison remarked that the table in Plan Implementation, which is proposed to be removed, has been useful. She asked if there are any plans to replace the table to reflect the new PUD policies. Mr. Walther said it’s a little odd to be providing zoning code information in the Comprehensive Plan. He said in general the Comprehensive Plan sets policy goals and the Zoning Code controls more specifically. Mr. Walther said staff could look into placing a table elsewhere in the plan that would summarize the Comprehensive Plan categories which would lay out density restrictions. Chair Person opened the public hearing. No one was present wishing to speak and the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments relating to Planned Unit Developments. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission February 4, 2015 Page 4 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Submitted by, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 Agenda Item #3A 3A. Conditional Use Permit – Excavation for new home 4106 Forest Lane Case No.: 15-02-CUP Applicant: Timothy Alt, ALTUS Architecture & Design Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to export approximately 816 cubic yards of fill, subject to conditions included by Staff. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Description of Request: Requested is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to export approximately 816 cubic yards of fill which is required for the construction of a new house. Background: The applicant was hired by Yu Sunny Han to design a house for this property. The property is a vacant parcel with a significant grade change, 31 feet from the rear property line to the street curb. The CUP is required to excavate enough soil from the hillside to construct the house. Location: The subject property is located in the Lake Forest Neighborhood. It is on the north side of Forest Lane, just west of the Forest Road/Forest Lane intersection. Agenda Item No 3A – Conditional Use Permit – Excavation for new home Page 2 Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 Analysis: If approved, the CUP will allow the applicant to remove approximately 816 cubic yards of material from the property to facilitate the construction of a new house. Excavation: The details of the excavation are as follows: Truck loads: 68 Trucks per day: 14 Number of days of hauling: 5 days Hours of operation: 8am to 5pm Date hauling begins: The start date is dependent upon when the road weight restrictions are put into place. If they are not in place when the CUP is approved, then hauling will start immediately after approval (March 17). Otherwise it will begin immediately after weight restrictions are lifted, which is typically mid-April. Haul Route: The trucks will utilize County 25 - France Ave - Forest Road – Forest Lane. A map showing the haul route is attached. Erosion Control: An erosion control plan was reviewed and preliminarily approved by the City Engineering Department. An erosion control permit is required from the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The required erosion control measures must be in place prior to commencing the project. The erosion control review is focusing on the steep grades and erosion potential for this site. The applicant intends to limit the amount of grading within 10 feet from the side property lines and keep the bulk of the excavation in the center of the property. Additionally, erosion control double net blankets will be utilized along the slopes. Silt fence will be installed around the perimeter of the site, and a mulch berm will be installed across the construction driveway. Stormwater: The site will be graded so that runoff water will not go onto neighboring properties. The water will be directed to the street by swales along the side property lines. Proposed House: While the purpose of the CUP application is the removal of 816 cubic yards of soil, a copy of the plans for the proposed home was submitted with the application for information purposes only. The plans show that the proposed home is well within the scale of other homes in the area. It is a two-story with a tuck-under garage. A copy of the home plans are attached to the report. Agenda Item No 3A – Conditional Use Permit – Excavation for new home Page 3 Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted on Saturday, February 14th. The neighbors were in attendance and asked several questions about the home and construction. They appeared to be satisfied with the answers and process, and welcomed the future homeowners. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to export approximately 816 cubic yards of material for the purpose of construction of a new house, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met. 2. All necessary permits must be obtained. 3. Prior to issuance of permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 to ensure the streets will be kept clean and to repair damage to City, streets, stormwater lines or other public infrastructure that may result from the construction activity. b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner. 4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during grading and stormwater facility construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and 7:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays. b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties. 5. Trucks shall utilize County Road 25, France Ave, Forest Road and Forest Lane. Attachments: Letter from applicant Haul Route Grading Plan House Plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 Study Session Agenda Item 1 Southwest Light Rail Transit Update Description of Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) The Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) project (METRO Green Line Extension) will operate from downtown Minneapolis through the communities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, passing in close proximity to Edina. The proposed alignment includes 17 new stations and approximately 16 miles of double track. It will be part of an integrated system of transitways, including connections to the METRO Blue Line, the Northstar Commuter Rail line, bus routes and proposed future transitways. The total project cost of $1.65 billion will be funded through a mix of federal, state and local sources, with federal funds making up approximately half the total. At Target Field Station in Minneapolis, Green Line Extension trains will continue along the METRO Green Line, providing one-seat rides to the University of Minnesota, Capitol area and downtown St. Paul. SWLRT is expected to be operational in 2019. Overall Project Status In 2014, all of the cities and Hennepin County gave municipal consent to the project, which was to approve the mode of travel (LRT) and the alignment of the line. Work continues on the engineering of SWLRT, with 2015 being a year to advance it from 30% complete to 60% complete. Many engineering details are being worked through in this phase. Project Funding Construction of the SWLRT is to be funded 50% by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 30% by the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), 10% by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) and 10% by the State. The FTA requires various processes to reach approval and funding. This month the project received a new “Medium-High” New Starts ranking from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), up from “Medium” in 2011, and $150 million for the project was recommended in President Obama’s Study Session Meeting of February 25, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: SWLRT Update fiscal year 2016 budget. These are two pieces of good news that show that the project is moving forward with FTA and is competitive for final funding. Recently the City Council approved moving forward with four additional design items that would enhance the project in St. Louis Park (see attached drawings). These include: § Xenwood Avenue Underpass - Will allow redevelopment of McGarvey site - Increases access and public safety - Remedies access restriction on Wooddale § Lynn Avenue Extension - Creates better circulation for peds, bikes and autos - Improves access at intersection with Lynn Ave - Better access to park and ride from CSAH 25 § Beltline Blvd/CSAH 25 Intersection - Improves traffic flow through intersection - Better turning movements in intersection § Louisiana Station Trail - Allows new access within rail right-of-way - Alternated connection between neighborhoods Station Architecture Design Four prototypes of stations are designed for the SWLRT line (see attached drawings). They are designed to provide architectural consistency with the existing Green Line (Central Corridor), while acknowledging the different communities and station sites along the SWLRT corridor. In March, the SPO is planning public open houses to show and discuss the station designs with the public; information on these will be forwarded as times and locations are determined. Staff has worked with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) to determine which of our stations fit which type, and has preliminarily identified the following: Station Prototype Features Louisiana Landmark Taller feature to denote landmark Wooddale Neighborhood Lower features to blend in with neighborhood Beltline Town Square Features mimic buildings found in a town center SPO is presenting these architectural designs to the public at open houses in early April. Public Art Ten artists submitted proposals for public art at the stations; 5-7 are expected to be chosen for the work. Each station will have approximately $250,000 for public art. A Station Art Committee for the St. Louis Park stations will need to be formed this spring, with 6-8 members appointed by St. Louis Park, 1 appointed by Hennepin County and 1 or more appointed by SPO. Each city will have a Public Art Committee to work with the artists chosen to work on its SWLRT station art. The Committee will provide input on the public art at the St. Louis Park stations to SPO and the artists. The city will make appointments within the next month or so and the committee will begin its work in April. Study Session Meeting of February 25, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: SWLRT Update Joint Development Joint Development is a FTA program that integrates station area development with transit elements. For the SWLRT, the SPO is looking at using the program at two stations – Beltline and Blake. These stations were selected based on the readiness of the market, the availability of land, local interest and development feasibility. The intent of Joint Development is for the SPO to work with the local community to build new transit-oriented development and transit infrastructure that both increases ridership and provides for economic development/tax base at the station areas. FTA Eligible Joint Development Activities: • Land acquisition and relocation costs • Demolition of existing structures • Site preparation, including environmental work • Utilities, roadways and other infrastructure including building foundations • Pedestrian and bicycle access • Site amenities (streetscape, plazas, etc.) • Project development activities including design, engineering, and real estate packaging • Construction of exterior commercial space • Parking improvements At the Beltline station, the Joint Development property includes the southeast corner property of CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd, and includes the 4601 Highway 7 property the EDA purchased last year. The anticipated development includes 324,000 square feet of office with some small retail, and 260 housing units. The transit element would include a 541 public park and ride ramp with 200 additional parking spaces to serve the development. The advantage for the Met Council is that a Joint Development project can receive revenue from leasing the property it owns and use the revenue for maintenance of the transit facilities at that location. Joint development projects are included in the total project budget of new light rail lines and funded half with FTA dollars and half with local matching funds. SWLRTs local funding partners (CTIB and HCRRA) have not been willing to pay for the 50 percent local match to ensure that the projects can receive Federal funding, so SPO is asking the local municipalities to make a commitment to cover the 50% local match. The City contribution could include grants such as the CMAQ grant the city has applied for ($7 million), other grants, tax increment financing, land contribution, etc. The SPO is moving forward on Joint Development, and completing the steps necessary to receive FTA funding. The next steps include hiring consultants for market analysis/financial feasibility and architectural and design services. A public engagement process is planned as well. If Joint Development moves forward, St. Louis Park will be asked to support the project with a 50% financial commitment. Staff will continue to analyze the program requirements and provide a recommendation on whether or not the City should proceed. If the City moves ahead, we would then put out an RFP with the goal of finding a development partner for the site. It is anticipated that the RFP will go out by the end of 2015. Study Session Meeting of February 25, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: SWLRT Update Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Attachments: Locally Requested Capital Investments – drawings Station Architecture Prototypes Beltline Blvd and CSAH 25 Intersection Lynn Avenue Extension Xenwood Underpass New Trail Louisiana to Brunswick 42 Station Prototypes Town Square Landmark Neighborhood Landscape Landmark Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 Study Session Agenda Item 2 Form-Based Code Update Background: The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with an update on the development of a form-based code (FBC) for the three SWLRT Station Areas. As a recap, the City is developing a FBC as a tool to encourage transit-oriented development around the SWLRT stations and received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant in July of 2013 for this purpose. Leslie Oberholtzer of CodaMetrics was hired to lead the City in this project. A work group consisting of developers, local property owners or business representatives, community members, designers, an Environment and Sustainability Commission member, and Carl Robertson of the Planning Commission has been established to assist in creating and reviewing the FBC. As the name implies, form-based codes emphasize the regulation of the built form of an area. Form includes such things as building height, building mass, parking placement, locations for open space, the way a building relates to the street with windows, doors and materials and streetscape. A FBC also regulates uses but with less emphasis than traditional zoning. Form- based codes are often implemented in transit station areas or downtown areas as they are well- suited for creating walkable, mixed-use places. So far, the City has held two community workshops, which included an image preference survey (IPS) to gather public input on preferences for building forms and their relation to the street. An online version of the IPS was also conducted, where the public could vote for images they liked and provide comments are why they liked, or disliked, a certain image. A summary of the results is attached. A draft of the FBC has been created based on input received from the community workshops, in conjunction with previous planning efforts in the station areas, such as: the Beltline Design Guidelines, the Louisiana Station Area Plan, and the Southwest Investment Framework. The City has also received a draft of the FBC, which is currently being reviewed by staff and the work group. Once the Code has been fully reviewed by the work group, staff would like to hold another study session with the Planning Commission and the City Council. The draft Code will then also be released for public comment. Staff will be presenting a brief overview of the draft Code at the February 25 study session to introduce the direction that is being pursued. Staff anticipates having a final draft of the FBC in May. Attachments: Summary of IPS Results Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner St. Louis Park Southwest LRT Station AreasImage Preference Survey Summary The following pages show a summary of the results from Image Preference Surveys from two community workshops convened to inform the writing of a form-based code to promote transit-oriented development around St. Louis Park’s three Southwest LRT Station Areas. The first workshop, on May 6, 2014, focused on the future Wooddale Station, Louisiana Station, and the Lake Street area adjacent to both of these areas. Two weeks later, on May 20, 2014, another workshop was held for three areas within the future Beltline Station area. An Image Preference Survey (IPS) is a powerful tool used for eliciting group preferences on community char- acter and appearance. It can help create a visual vocabulary to enhance discussion of image and definition of place. In our IPS, participants were shown a series of PowerPoint slides, each containing photographs related to geographic areas within the station areas. To offer a full range of options, images were drawn from local, regional, and national examples. Participants scored each image from -5 to +5 (most negative to most positive), and then images with the highest and lowest overall scores were discussed at smaller table gather- ings. Of the 30-40 images surveyed for each area, this summary shows only the 5-6 highest and lowest scoring images. It also shows comments from participants recorded during the discussions following the survey. These results will be used to help establish preferred building and street types to write the form-based code. Wooddale StationMixed Use Station Area Image Preference Survey Summary: Highest and Lowest Scores Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) • like relation of retail to street • like the lower portion, not the roof • like setback and landscaping • like tower, but may be too large • like benches, landscaping, awnings, lighting • like variation of store fronts • would like gathering space • like circular element • nice height • like setback • like open space • like mix of materials, colors, texture • like the courtyard, gathering space • love trees and green • good outside seating • feels welcoming • protected from street • like greenery • like trees; streetscape inviting Wooddale Station Mixed Use Station Area • too flat and tall • don’t like parking placement • don’t like blank walls/no windows • building is too close to street Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Lake StreetMixed Use/Commercial Area • cute and quaint • close to sidewalk/road • colorful; welcoming • would be better at 2 stories • good scale • no on peak roof • 2-3 story is cool • outside shading is good • good example of mixed use • nice sidewalk • good to have residential option • like gathering area • good green • like green space in front of balconies • like variety of external materials and roof elevation • interest to structure • landscaping • texture • traditional • nice architectural elements • good architecture • good roof • good greenery • good parkway look Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Image Preference Survey Summary: Highest and Lowest Scores Lake Street Mixed Use/Commercial Area • don’t like, too dated • nothing draws you • where is front door? • ugly windows Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) • ugly! • no green • parking just ugly Louisiana StationMixed Use Area • like greenway/ walkway • like mixed use • like awnings • like boulevard feel, walkway is comfortable • like scale of sidewalks, green space, street parking • building scale is right; too flat though • like the scale • like fountain • like pedestrian walkway • nice for office • like fountain • like crosswalks • like trees • like building mass Image Preference Survey Summary: Highest and Lowest Scores Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Louisiana Station Mixed Use Area • too tall/big • too “straight up” in form • too stark • too tall • looks like a prison • like idea of masking parking • don’t like tower • use of brick and design of first level are okay • upper stories are too plain - need more interest • for a parking lot, not bad; better than a surface lot • needs windows • too low and close to street • congested parking Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) • hideous building, no variation • scale is too small • too suburban • too small town looking • set back too much • don’t like lawn - needs more landscaping Beltline StationBusiness Park Area • like modern building • like sidewalk • good combination of materials • building looks solid, but still has good windows • like architecture, height, and scale • unique • like that there is some landscaping • like modern elements • like glazing on first level • like on-street parking • like wide sidewalk • like landscape, sidewalks and plantings • entry seems welcoming; overall seems inviting • like variation in window sizes • like textures, colors • like awnings • too tall or as big as should be allowed • like design/architecture • like glass, materials • like scale and height; like how higher stories are set back • like landscaping • “belongs in a business park” • good scale and roof interest • like colors, walking area, tall windows • traditional architecture • like defined entrance, close to street Image Preference Survey Summary: Highest and Lowest Scores Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Beltline Station Business Park Area • boring solid color • no green space • industrial space • don’t like parking placement • totally blank wall and industrial material are not appropriate finishes • total industrial blank wall, no windows • NO! • 1-story building is not enough • feels isolated • no shrubs • gable roof seems out of place • too wide spread • can’t walk there • good rhythm • too few stories • okay now but not for future development • too low; 1-story doesn’t fit • yucky field; too much grass, needs trees • don’t like that there’s no sidewalk • surface parking Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Beltline StationMixed Use Corridor • people-oriented street level • human scale, designed for people • landscaping; public space with bench, nice seating • northern area of Beltline could have more of this with the retail and destination office • like mix of materials, architecture relief with awning • retail first floor is good • looks more Main Street than mixed use • like articulation in building wall • don’t like roof • plaza okay • fountain doesn’t feel right for beltline • good placement to street • good use of public/gathering space, but maybe only at corners • like pedestrian scale • good green space • like articulation in building wall • don’t like roof • like corner tower Image Preference Survey Summary: Highest and Lowest Scores Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Beltline Station Mixed Use Corridor • might as well be an alley • boring; some glass, but it’s monotonous • flat • don’t like blank walls • not attractive • don’t see hawo this looks like mixed use at first glance • not multi-use • no mixed use • appropriate because it’s mixed use, but it’s not pretty • don’t like a drive-through here • are you kidding? • doesn’t feel mixed use, feels more like business • not human scale • like it because it is already there and it’s not a nuisance Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) • like space between sidewalk and street with green area, street trees • like setback, street entrances • like columns, traditional brick, and contrasting colors - maybe too traditional? • facade may be too monolithic • alcoves good, attractive porch - wrought iron • tree-lined sidewalks • rhythm vs same • attractive • like scale - this is minimum appropriate density • like difference within facade • like different corner element • openness, windows • green space • pergola, relief on building • variety of facade • variable setbacks • good articulation • like variety of materials, mixed formats • mid-level of appropriate density • remove utility poles • glass - variety • open feeling • like windows • light and airy • approachable • good for lower-end of density in area • good articulation • good street presence • like differentiation between units • good balance of scale and green space • too close to the street • building type is appropriate • differentiation between units is better • more architectural interest is better • first floor doesn’t look residential; should be raised • variety in facade: materials, heights, in and out • interesting look • architectural face • colors and texturesBeltline StationResidential Area Image Preference Survey Summary: Highest and Lowest Scores Highest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Beltline Station Residential Area • garages on front are unattractive • don’t like garages • sidewalks don’t look inviting • don’t like metal material on building • totally out of character for area • industrial and foreboding, warehouse • looks like the back of a building • blank wall looks like a warehouse • uninviting • too cold • no openings • entrances are strange - don’t look inviting • density is too low for area • looks like a beach house • stark • stairwells unwelcome • all the same • too tall • design is outdated • don’t like garage right on street • windows are too small • like brick • closed off • boring, plain, not interesting • boxy, hideous Lowest Scoring Images (from highest to lowest) Station Area Development Description: The Station Area Development project was an online forum hosted on www.ideasinthepark.org. This was an online version of an Image Preference Survey (IPS) used at two previous community workshops. The IPS was organized by station area, with smaller specific locations selected in each station area. These locations, or image preference areas, were identified in maps so that participants could locate the areas of interest. These locations were drawn based on the character proposed in plans for each of the station areas. St. Louis Park staff selected six images for each station area and asked citizens to vote for the images they liked and provide comments on what they liked and disliked about an image. A separate forum was used for each of the four areas. Forum: Belt Line Station Mixed Use Corridor Summary: Top Voted Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 1 Votes: 24 Comments: 6 Comments: 1. like the addition of open gathering space with nature elements where people working can step outside and have lunch, walk, relax, make a call, fountain beautiful and relaxing 2. I also like this as there are green spaces to enjoy as we are "The Park” Park area should be incorporated into all the stops as we are St. Louis "Park" Also, love the private balconies with walls around, where you can sit outside and enjoy your own private space without your neighbor next to you on their balcony. So many modern apartments don't do this. 3. Love the mixed use plan, and this particular configuration! Beautiful use of natural greenery as well as the water feature. Nice and open, very inviting. Very relaxing, which is not typically how you feel when dealing with a light rail line. 4. Would be great to have something similar to this in the mixed use area. Need a nice street presence that is friendly. A strong timeless design would be nice to see using quality materials. The design in this pic is already aging poorly. Higher density concrete structures would be very appealing like 36 Park, but need ground floor retail. Have some on street parking but no surface lots in this mixed use area. 5. I like this design and Echo the other commenters thoughts. One cautionary issue: with all the very small, aesthetically pleasing businesses that seem to be getting the most support could creat a glut and lead to many vacant, unpleasant, spaces. 6. Mixed development near light rail should command a premium, no? Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 3 Votes: 16 Comments: 3 Comments: 1. like the look of excelsior and grand, walkable, easy to park, lots of natural common space as well as retail/living space 2. Love the private balconies and green space and convenient shops 3. This is a ok design but the retail needs a more welcoming front to it such as larger windows. Too many different materials being used on the exterior but a dense design with short setbacks is the hope for this area. Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 2 Votes: 4 Comments: 3 Comments: 1. I don't care for the neighbors balconies right next to mine without a wall in between. It's nice to know your neighbors but I like my own private outdoor space so I can sit and stare into space if I want without having to get into a conversation with your neighbor every time you step outside. 2. I would like to see designs for mixed use that are different from what we see in other areas of the Park. The Beltline space should have its own personality and character; it shouldn't look like Excelsior and Grand or other areas with distinctive features. 3. The design of the apartments above was poorly done. Already in need of a facelift. Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 5 Votes: 1 Comments: 2 Comments: 1. I wouldn't live in this. It looks like a prison with cement all around it with wrought iron gates. 2. I agree; this is really unwelcoming. Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 4 Votes: 0 Comments: 1 Comments: 1. If there must be an office building this looks better than a big box as an office building. This has more character with the arches. It looks friendlier than the CVS choice. Image: Belt Line Mixed Use 6 Votes: 0 Comments: 2 Comments: 1. So sad. Hope this can be ruled out quickly. 2. Ack! Forum: Belt Line Station Business Park Area Summary Top Voted Image: Belt Line Business Park 1 Votes: 28 Comments: 3 Comments: 1. Very inviting for cyclists and pedestrians with the bike lane clearly marked, a nice attractive pedestrian sidewalk with attractive trees. Appealing facade with lots of windows and an open feeling to the area and the structure. 2. Need to use quality construction materials that are going to look great and hold up for a long time. Density should very high on the list of priorities due to location and future value of this area. Surface parking lots should be limited. Should be very walkable with inviting street presence. 3. Looks great, for Excelsior, overkill for Hwy. 10, and possibly over kill for Beltline. What is the market asking for, premium space, or value space?? Image: Belt Line Business Park 5 Votes: 23 Comments: 7 Comments: 1. needs wider sidewalks, trees, nice classic look tho 2. Definitely more park area, wider sidewalks and benches 3. This would be my second choice, but I'd also like to see more park area, wider sidewalks, maybe a bike lane. Also, more vegetation/nature! 4. The setback on this is a little too small. Should be about 10 feet and not 5. The mixed use of so many materials in this design isn't going to age well. 3 stories is on the low end for density. We need to position this area to be attractive 25 years from now. 5. I don't see any designs that really do anything for me. I'd like something a little more modern without easily looking dated. 6. Along Beltline, or Hwy 10? Looks ok on pedestrian street, along Hwy 10 doesn't fit. 7. And I don't know where this comment should go, but I'll leave here. I'm concerned Skippy Field is within development boundary. Leave it alone as a ball field please. Image: Belt Line Business Park 2 Votes: 3 Comments: 4 Comments: 1. Suburban feel which we don't need in a high density area. The height of this is nice but not a close up to the street presence. 2. This station lacks visual appeal as well as trees/shrubs for a welcoming atmosphere. Plus, the trees/shrubs give back to our overall environment; go green. 3. Not sure I quite understand all the parameters needed to answer correctly, but if I understand, what is preferred style for office park along Hwy 10, then this is the highest density option. I don't see why curb appeal would be important, not much foot traffic along the highway. 4. One thought would be how to lure tennants out of downtown Minneapolis here… Image: Belt Line Business Park 3 Votes: 2 Comments: 2 Comments 1. Suburbia in a bad way. Not dense. Too large of setbacks. Not maximizing tax potential for the space. 2. This is more in line with what currently exists. Image: Belt Line Business Park 4 Votes: 2 Comments: 2 Comments 1. Again, suburbia feel wasting valuable space. The city should be concerned about growing it's density to increase their tax revenues and further growth. This would be sad. 2. I personally don't like the style. Looks like a high end apartment complex entry. Image: Belt Line Business Park 6 Votes: 0 Comments: 4 Comments: 1. A manufacturing facility like this isn't something a city should hope for in a prime development location. Sad. 2. Gag me. 3. Industrial spaces have failed in these same areas before... Somehow the synergy of light rail needs to be studied, correlated to what works best here, maybe there is some sort of light industry that makes sense? 4. Or college expansion?? Forum: Louisiana Station Mixed Use Area Summary Top Voted Image: Lousiana 3 Votes: 22 Comments: 4 Comments: 1. Visually unattractive to me. Doesn't fit into context of the neighborhood. If similar size/height of adjoining buildings, modern can look good. 2. I love this because it's distinctive and different. In line with my comment about Beltline, it's nice to see something that distinguishes the Louisiana station area from other areas in the Park. 3. How do trees grow out of pavement? 4. Visually interesting to me Image: Louisiana 2 Votes: 20 Comments: 5 Comments: 1. love when developers don't feel need to have building go to very edge of lot. feels gracious to have room for a wide sidewalk, grass AND trees 2. This configuration lends itself to businesses having outdoor seating or products on display (I envision fruit stand outside of small grocer). I don't see it on busy multi-lane roads like Excelsior because buildings would be spread far apart. 3. Love this! So light and open feeling. Again, inviting for more than just vehicle traffic. Nice use of greenery and our lovely bright Minnesota sky. This would even be appealing in winter. 4. Appears to be yet another strip mall. 5. I also like the greenery and space for outdoor seating Image: Louisiana 1 Votes: 7 Comments: 3 Comments: 1. Tower element would be interesting on prominent building or for creating visual indicator of nearest entrance to Methodist Hospital. Should be used very sparingly. 2. Even though this has a lot of pavement, this concept seems to be the one that could be multi use. Pop in a concert or event here. Walk from train to hospital, sit and eat, shop, … 3. This design is the only one in which the different sections of the building as well as the landscape actually compliment each other. Image: Louisiana 5 Votes: 2 Comments: 2 Comments: 1. Not conducive to pedestrian traffic: set too far back from the road, and no sidewalks along road or to the building (apparently you need to walk up the driveway). 2. As much as I like green, The only thing to do on this lawn is mow it. Louisiana station should be a bustling pedestrian thoroughfare. Image: Louisiana 6 Votes: 2 Comments: 2 Comments: 1. I do like street level retail space. Overall, I feel Excelsior and Grand have better solutions for hiding parking: parking is hidden by adjoining buildings. 2. I think parking will be important as more businesses are added. Image: Louisiana 4 Votes: 1 Comments: 3 Comments: 1. boring, sad, industrial, cold, looks ghetto 2. Visually unattractive to me. Doesn't fit into context of the neighborhood. If similar size/height of adjoining buildings, modern can look good. 3. This looks like something out of the sixties trying to imitate in concrete what Wright was doing in wood. Please no. Forum: Wooddale Station: Lake Street Mixed Use Commercial Area Summary Top Voted Image: Wooddale Lake Street 1 Votes: 34 Comments: 7 Comments: 1. Like the green feel,trees,welcoming 2. I like the green trees. Interesting and nice to have welcoming eating spaces outside. Could this be a quaint gathering spot for ice cream on a Sunday afternoon? Coffee shop in the morning? I like that it is welcoming and inspires creativity. 3. I like that it is pedestrian friendly. 4. The thing I like about this and my preferences for the other stations is the separation of pedestrian/bike traffic from vehicles. Much safer, especially in winter. Also, the boulevard makes the sidewalk seem like an inviting gathering place rather than just a means to get from one place to another. The fact that someone parked a moped there demonstrates the feeling this design invokes (a bit European, less 4 wheel vehicle oriented). 5. Timeless design that ages well and inviting. Quality materials and not a contest of how many mixed materials can be pinned onto the exterior. 6. I agree- this design ties in well with the neighboring developments (use of red brick) and is modern, quaint and looks inviting. It looks like somewhere people want to meet up for a coffee or lunch! LOVE IT!!! 7. Overall I like the design but the flat front of the building seems a bit uninspired Image: Wooddale Lake Street 3 Votes: 26 Comments: 8 Comments: 1. lots of greenery, beautiful windows, classic brick, nice details on roofline, patio railing, white window trim and dark roof/first floor pop against the brick, just interesting and beautiful to look at, 2. This design, with its old-fashioned appeal, is a nice complement to the adjacent historic Elmwood neighborhood and the Milwaukee Road Depot at Jorvig's Park. 3. This does remind me of the Depot at Jorvig Park...nice neighborhood feel,green touches with trees,flowers...interesting to look at.... 4. I like the green growth, architectural details, varied architecture. Balconies are interesting. Is that wrought iron? That is interesting and reminiscent of the areas early industrial and railroad history. 5. I like that it is pedestrian friendly and encouraging. 6. Love the wrought iron and the greenery, but there aren't places to gather and talk. Too much blacktop and sidewalk is too narrow. 7. I like the small scale 8. I like the historic feel of this design but the lower level storefront doesn't feel very inviting Image: Wooddale Lake Street 2 Votes: 4 Comments: 4 Comments: 1. Doesn't seem to "fit" into our neighborhood for some reason...feel like this is south Mpls or the likes. Too many roof lines,confusing..which door do I use....? 2. This is actually kind of cute, especially with the blush colored building in the back. It would be my first choice if the sidewalks were wider and there was more vegetation, particularly away from the building (like a median or just a vegetation isle) 3. hodgepodge. piece meal. don't like it. 4. Looks like existing buildings received new tenants: gift shop, insurance, deli, etc. Image: Wooddale Lake Street 5 Votes: 0 Comments: 1 Comments: 1. To flat, to sterile, not enough greenery or welcoming. Don't like that the first thing you notice is blacktop. Image: Wooddale Lake Street 4 Votes: 0 Comments: 5 Comments: 1. zero design and personality, just a square box. boooo 2. Not pedestrian friendly since pedestrians need to cross parking lot to access the building. 3. too flat, lacks architectural interest, parking lot is too dominant. 4. My least favorite for this station. All the prior comments hit the nail on the head. Very unappealing. Zero pedestrian or bike appeal, difficult access 5. just another strip mall Image: Wooddale Lake Street 6 Votes: 0 Comments: 3 Comments: 1. Not inviting, no clear entrance. I also dislike parking on side of building which means pedestrians walk further between retail businesses 2. This looks like a storage building 3. Not inviting,boring,not welcoming and agree with ^...storage building Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 Study Session Item #3 South Side of Excelsior Zoning Discussion Following the regular meeting, we would like to continue our discussion regarding zoning changes resulting from the South Excelsior study that was just completed. Please see attached document for discussion. In summary, the major changes proposed include: • Decrease the minimum width of a side yard abutting a street from 15 feet to five feet in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. (Note: the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 10 foot easement for side yards abutting a street). • Allow for a minimum drive aisle width of 22.0 feet for 90 degree stall angles in C-1 districts. • Require a parking lot setback of eight feet from the rear lot line to create a buffer between commercial and residential properties in C-1 districts. • Increase the minimum parking lot screening height from six feet to eight feet in C-1 districts. • Require buildings in the C-1 district with three or more stories to set back those upper stories at least 10 feet from the street side property line. • Additional minor language changes for clarification and correction purposes. If the commission concurs, we will proceed to set a public hearing to consider these changes through the zoning ordinance amendment process. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Changes Prepared by: Nicole Mardell, Community Development Intern Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Study Session Item No. 3 S. Excelsior Zoning Amendments Page 2 Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district. *** (f) Dimensional standards/densities. (1) No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, except as provided in section 36-78. (2) The floor area ratio within the C-1 district shall not exceed 1.2. (3) A side yard abutting a street shall be a minimum of five15 feet wide. (4) The front yard shall be a minimum of five feet. (5) Through lots shall have a required front yard on each street. *** Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district. (g) Dimensional standards/densities. (1) No structure or building shall exceed the lesser of six stories or 75 feet in height, unless authorized by section 36-78 or section 36-367. The height limit may be increased by 50 percent to permit buildings nine stories or 112.5 feet in height, whichever is the lesser. This greater building height shall only be permitted for buildings which meet the following conditions: a. The building shall be at least 200 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. b. The building shall not cast a shadow on residential structures between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. c. The building shall be located within travel demand management zones A or B as defined in section 36-322. (2) The floor area ratio within the C-2 district shall not exceed 2.0. (3) A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than five15 feet in width. (4) The front yard shall be a minimum of five feet. (5) There shall be no required side yard for buildings unless the side yard abuts an R district. If that is the case, for buildings up to 35 feet in height, the required side yard shall be the same as the required side yard for the abutting R district. For buildings 35 feet and higher, the required side yard shall be 15 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height in excess of 35 feet. The required setback for buildings over 35 feet in height may be met by setting back those stories of the building over 35 feet. (6) There shall be no required rear yard for buildings under 35 feet in height, unless the rear yard abuts an R district. If that is the case, the required rear yard shall be 15 feet. The minimum rear yard for buildings over 35 feet in height shall be half the building height, unless it abuts an R district and then the required rear yard shall be equal to the building height. *** Study Session Item No. 3 S. Excelsior Zoning Amendments Page 3 Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Sec. 36-361. Off-street parking areas, paved areas, and loading spaces. (k) Design Requirements PARKING LOT DIMENSIONS Table 36-361 (b) Stall Angle (degrees) Curb Length (feet) Vehicle Projection (feet) Aisle Width (feet) Total Width (feet) 45 Standard Compact 12.0 11.5 18.5 17.0 13.0* 50.0 60 Standard Compact 10.0 9.5 20.0 18.0 15.0* 55.0 75 Standard Compact 9.0 8.5 20.5 17.5 18.0* 59.0 90 Standard Compact 8.5 8.0 18.0 16.0 24.0*** 61.0** Parallel Standard Compact 23.0 21.0 8.5 8.0 22.0 38.0 * One-way aisles only. ** When parking is provided within a parking ramp, the total bay width may be reduced to 58 feet. *** In a C1 district the minimum aisle width is 22.0 feet for 90 degree stall angles. (10) Yards. Required parking areas shall be subject to the following requirements: a. In the R-4 and R-C districts, parking areas shall be subject to the requirements for front yards and side yards abutting a street. b. In the C-1, C-2, O, I-P and I-G districts, parking areas shall be permitted in the front yard and side yards abutting a street, provided that the yard shall not be reduced to less than five feet. c. In C-1 districts parking shall be located behind the building. The parking lot setback shall be eight feet from the rear lot line to create a buffer zone between the commercial use and residential properties. *** Sec. 36-364. Landscaping (4) Parking lots: a. All off street parking areas and drive lanes located within 30 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building such as a school, religious institution or community center shall be screened with landscaping and a solid fence or wall a minimum of eight six feet high in the side and back yard and 42 inches in the front yard. Except on Excelsior Boulevard C-1 properties, a A hedge may be substituted for the fence in the front yard only. Sec. 36-366. Architectural design. (b) Standards. (1) Building Design. a. Architectural design elements that will be considered in the review of building and site plans include building materials, color and texture, building bulk, general massing, roof treatment, proportion of openings, facade design elements and variation, window and openings. Site plan design elements that will be considered in the determination as to whether site plan design is Study Session Item No. 3 S. Excelsior Zoning Amendments Page 4 Meeting Date: February 25, 2015 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ superior include quantity, quality, variation, compatibility and size of plant materials, landscape berms and screening walls. Also considered will be the overall order, symmetry and proportion of the various elements within the site and within the larger context of the area or corridor. b. The height, bulk, general massing, roof treatment, materials, colors, textures, major divisions, and proportions of a new or remodeled building shall be compatible with that of other buildings on the site and on adjacent sites. Buildings in the C-1 district with three or more stories shall have those upper stories setback at least 10 feet from any property line.