Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/03/20 - ADMIN - Minutes - Planning Commission - RegularOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 20, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Peilen; Carl Robertson; Alanna Franklin (youth member) Lynne Carper; Matt Eckholm; Joe Tatalovich; Jessica Kraft MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison, Jacquelyn Kramer 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes: February 20, 2019 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-1, Commissioner Peilen abstained as she was not present for the February 20th meeting. 3.Public Hearings A.Best Cleaners Conditional Use Permit and Variance Applicant: Robert Colehour (Best Cleaners, Inc.) Location: 8105 Minnetonka Blvd Case Nos: 19-02-CUP and 19-03-VAR Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant applied for a conditional use permit and variance to construct a building addition to expand their existing operations. The property is zoned C-2 General Commercial, and Best Cleaners has operated on the site since 1999. Both the existing and proposed uses are permitted in the C-2 district. Existing building elevations consist of painted brick, glass glazing and the canvas canopy, and the new addition would be over 90% class one materials, which meets city architectural material standards. Zoning code section 36-366 states no building may display more than 5% of any elevation surface in bright pure accent colors. The existing yellow canopy makes up more than 5% of the building elevation, and does not comply with this provision. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval the existing canopy should be renovated to reduce the amount of bright pure accent colors to not more than 5% of the total building elevation. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 2 Staff finds this application meets all of the C-2 and general conditions for a CUP. The existing and proposed building addition meet the north, east and south setback requirements. The west side of the existing building is only five feet off the property line and the applicant proposes continuing that line for the building addition. The parcel is adjacent to residential zoned parcels, so the required setback is fifteen feet. Applicant requested a variance to reduce the side setback to bring the existing building into compliance with the zoning code and allow the new addition to be built. After reviewing the application, city staff found little chances for negative impacts from a five foot setback due to the location of existing buildings on the site and the apartment building on the southwest. Practical difficulties exist in complying with the zoning code, and the variance will allow for the most efficient use of the interior space in the addition to maximize business operations. On-site parking will also be maximized with this layout, resulting in the least amount of impact of traffic circulation and on-street parking in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the commission close the public hearing and recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance with conditions recommended by staff within the staff report. Commissioner Robertson questioned the variance of ten feet on the west, and indicated an interest in respecting that buffer between the existing residential use and Best Cleaners. He raised the possibility of the addition shifting 10 feet to comply with the regulation and avoid the variance. Architect for the applicant, John Kosmas with KK Design explained the plans presented best fits the property’s location with the least amount of impact to the neighboring parcels. Mr. Kosmas further explained that the addition would not be adjacent to the residential building. Commissioner Carper asked about the business hours and the long term plans for operations on the site. General Manager for Best Cleaners, Robert Colehour stated the back half of the building is only open for production hours, which is 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The front half of the building is a laundry mat and those hours are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and then 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. Robert added they need the extra area so that they can consolidate operations from their Excelsior location. With the consolidation they will be able to add about six to seven full-time employees. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 3 Commissioner Carper asked if the business is a solely owned business or a franchise type of business. Mr. Colehour explained they are not a franchise and that they purchased the Excelsior location about three and a half years ago when it was Tonka Cleaners, then changed the name after purchase to Best. Commissioner Carper asked if customers from nearby businesses park in Best Cleaner’s lot, and if the business restricts parking and post signs in their lot. Mr. Colehour responded that they do not post any of those signs, though they have thought about it. The restaurant’s busy times are when Best Cleaners isn’t parking or needing the space so it’s never been a real issue. Commissioner Robertson had a follow-up question related to the reaction to the request for reducing the primary color awning, understanding it’s a very prominent part of the signage. Mr. Kosmas says they’ve also discussed the issue of having to change the color or reduce the amount of the canopy that is yellow and would like to request that particular condition be removed. As an established business the color is part of their branding at this site and the other buildings they own and would like to stay with it. He adds that the building rendering exaggerates the color compared to what it actually is today. Commissioner Robertson asked city staff about removing the condition that requires renovating the existing canopy and allowing the canopy to allow it continue as a legal nonconformity. Ms. Kramer responded that the proposed expanded yellow canopy shown on the east elevation would need an additional variance. This would be considered a separate issue from the existing canopy and whether it’s allowed to continue as a legal, non- conforming use. Commissioner Peilen says she agrees with Commissioner Robertson on this point. The canopy has been on the building for some time and people use the color to identify the business. If it’s suddenly gone people may wonder where the cleaners went. She supports keeping the existing canopy. Commissioner Carper asked if the Commission can modify the request to allow the color to continue and have that within what would be approved, or is this something that has to be done outside of this meeting. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 4 Planning Supervisor Sean Walther said if the commission makes a recommendation to the council to not require a change to the existing canopy on the north elevation of the building, the existing canopy will continue as a legal non-conformity. Any new canopy would need to be in compliance with the current code or a variance would need to be requested through a separate process. Commissioner Peilen asked if the staff is aware of any complaints regarding the color. Mr. Walther said staff has not received complaints and the only comments received were from two internal people from the city. Chair Eckholm asked for clarification as he was under the impression the issue was more about the size and percentage of the building that was that color versus the color itself. Mr. Walther said Chair Eckholm is correct; it is about the percentage and that the zoning code architectural standards limit bright pure accent colors to five percent of a building elevation, which this exceeds. Chair Eckholm asked if the applicant chose to keep the awning would they have to go smaller or could they leave it as-is. Mr. Walther said they can keep the canopy as-is or renovate it to reduce the yellow color. Mr. Kosmas stated the applicant is willing to modify the amount of yellow color on the proposed for the canopy on the east side of the building to comply with the zoning code. Commissioner Carper asked how colors are approved and how does one determine where the cutoff is between shade, tint and pantone. Mr. Walther said as the Zoning Administrator he interprets the regulation, and that if someone challenges the interpretation it can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals and City Council. Commissioner Carper asked if the owner would be willing to change the yellow of the canopy to a less bright color. Owner of the building and business, Dave Colehour stated they did not want to replace the existing canopy at this time. He added he does not care what the color the additional awning is as long as it looks nice and is more than willing to work with the city. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 5 The chair opened the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. The commissioners discussed amending the staff recommendations to allow the existing canopy to remain as legally nonconforming. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the conditional use permit and the variance as recommended by staff with the exception of the first portion of condition number two to allow the north canopy to remain and only require changes to the proposed new awning on the east elevation. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4.Other Business o Commissioner Peilen announced she will not be reapplying for another term. 5.Communications: o The next meeting will be April 3, 2019 and planning commission will discuss the Home Occupations ordinance, with another public hearing on this matter. o A study session will immediately follow the meeting to discuss the Mixed Use zoning district ordinance amendment and prepare for the joint study session with City Council on April 8, 2019. 6.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. and was followed by a study session. STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:45 p.m. 1.Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) Mr. Walther lead the discussion related to the 2019 Planning Commission work plan. He noted that a conversation has started internally about the Board of Zoning Appeals commission (BOZA). BOZA has been short two members and struggling to get people to apply and keeping a quorum. This could be due in part to the significant decline in the number of variance applications as a result of code changes. The city proposes shifting the duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Planning Commission and this transition will likely happen swiftly. Staff would like commissioners’ feedback. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 6 The city believes this change will improve efficiency and consistency on how variances are handled, and reduce the time for applicants to receive a hearing.. In addition, BOZA meet once monthly, whereas the Planning Commission meets twice monthly which means the city would be more responsive to applicants and the projects they would like to move forward. Instead of getting rid of BOZA, the Planning Commission members would also serve as the BOZA members and pair this meeting with the Planning Commission meeting, and the BOZA meeting would precede the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Walther described the duties expected of BOZA as follows: to act on variance only applications and BOZA member can make a final decision on a variance. BOZA decisions may be appealed to the city council. Also, any variance application that is paired with another application will be handled as it is now, through the Planning Commission, make a recommendation and have the city council make the final decision. BOZA also hears any appeals of interpretations made by the zoning administrator. This is also an opportunity to review and revise the bylaws. For example, there could be changes to meeting start times. Mr. Walther asked for any initial feedback. Commissioner Robertson said he is not opposed to it. Chair Eckholm responded that based on the explanation he does not oppose it either. Commissioner Kraft agreed that it seemed appropriate. She asked if this would add to the 2 hour time commitment they currently expect for the planning commission meetings. Mr. Walther said it would be very rare for that to happen. Commissioner Robertson asked if the Planning Commission, Youth Member would be a voting BOZA member. Mr. Walther said he does not think so. However, it was asked at the Boards and Commissions meeting and that could be pursued in the future. Commissioner Robertson noted there wasn’t a clear answer to why youth members were not voting members. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 7 Commissioner Robertson said as a recommending body it’s seems reasonable to consider this for Planning Commission compared to BOZA where it’s final decision. Chair Eckholm said he agreed with Commissioner Robertson, especially as there is a national conversation of having the legal voting age reduced to sixteen. He does not see this as being out of the question. Mr. Walther said he would direct the question to the city attorney. Commissioner Tatalovich asked about the posting of the meetings, will they need to be distinct because of the starting time being different if there is a BOZA meeting included that night. How do we make the public aware of starting times for the days there will be both meetings. Commissioner Peilen stated this seemed similar to the economic development authority meeting that precede the city council meetings. It is always noted in the agenda that is submitted on the city’s website for the public’s knowledge of what to expect each time. Mr. Walther agreed with Commissioner Peilen’s comment and explained how the City of St. Louis Park currently relates the meeting schedules to the public. Commissioner Carper gave another view point about the Youth Member being on the commission. He said there is an opportunity to hear the youth’s perspective on what is being talked about, which adds to the discussion very well. The youth member is not of age to vote in the community. This could be the reason to not give someone a vote on the boards and commissions. Chair Eckholm responded that board and commissions are advisory bodies. Mr. Walther states that not being a qualified voter is the likely reason for the voting restriction, but he will be confirm with the city attorney. On a side note, Commissioner Robertson said he would like to reexamine the primary color ordinance. Mr. Walther suggested that can be included in the review of the architectural materials. 2. Mixed Use Zoning District Mr. Walther explained this is to give everyone an opportunity to see the whole ordinance before bringing the ordinance to the commission for a public hearing and formal recommendation. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 8 Commissioner Peilen had a questions about the table on page 36 about the point system. She asked if this encouraging buildings that aren’t requesting city assistance to conform to city requirements. Mr. Walther said, yes it’s another way for the city to achieve the goals outlined even if there is not financial assistance and a way for developers to achieve higher densities. Commissioner Carper asked about page 33, and condition that liquor store needing to be at least a 1,000 feet from a site containing a pawn shop or firearm sales. When discussing home sale businesses and someone selling firearms from their home, would this be apply under those circumstances of 1,000 feet? Mr. Walther replied in the affirmative. Home-based firearm sales would need to be 1000 feet away. Commissioner Carper said he wanted to be sure that it was a consistent exclusion. Mr. Walther explained that it was applied consistently. Commissioner Robertson said this is worthy of more discussion as we are still in the middle of home sales discussions. With home sales being so different than retail sales. Commissioner Carper asked a question about page 38 of the agenda, regarding prohibiting a very large wall with no windows. He asked if there is a way to make this less ambiguous? Chair Eckholm stated we don’t want to be too prescriptive either. To prevent someone coming forward to use that as an angle. Commissioner Carper asked for clarification the requirement for visibility into the building should be maintained for a minimum depth of 3 feet. Can someone have the ability to obscure a window? Mr. Walther said they will try to redefine it better, but the concern is more at the pedestrian level, which has ranges from 3 to 7 feet above grade. Commissioner Kraft asked about the restrictions on the type of uses that may not be visible outside the building, as she would not want to prohibit windows in staff break rooms. Chair Eckholm suggested keeping break rooms away from the primary or secondary frontages, still allows windows to the outside just not by prime real estate. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 9 Commissioner Carper brought up page 39 item F, pedestrian scaled signs. He asked for clarification on what a pedestrian scaled sign is. Mr. Walther gave an example of a sign as a sandwich board sign, one you might find sitting on the sidewalk that is not connected to the building. This term is defined elsewhere in the zoning code. Commissioner Robertson stated that requiring 80% of class I material increases the cost of the building by quite a bit, which works against the goal of providing affordable housing by having the minimum so high. Chair Eckholm mentioned that it says no class III materials on any building face that is visible from public areas within the development or from off site, meaning any tower with density you cannot build with class III materials. Commissioner Carper asked for further clarification on page 33 item 1A about not being able to have a separate bar area within the establishment where it serves wine, beer and liquor. Mr. Walther explained this is an already established rule that is being repeated from other districts. 3. Preparation of City Council Study Session on April 8th Mr. Walther explained there are two items to be discussed with city council. The ground floor transparency window requirements ordinance was voted down with a 6-0 vote by planning commission. Also, the council decided this year to meet with the chair of each board or commission to go over the 2019 work plan. Mr. Walther explained this a review of what we have prepared as a work plan and questions they may have about priorities or things city council may not have had on their radar before. Commissioners agreed they would prefer an informal conversation that includes all members, rather than having one spokesperson on behalf of the commission. Commissioner Robertson said they should discuss why they are torn on certain things. Commissioner Carper says they should hear all their different perspectives as they all come from different point of views on matters. Official Minutes Planning Commission March 20, 2019 Page 10 Chair Eckholm said based off the conversation right now, he sees the architecture material requirements as not ranked on strategic priority. And maybe this is something that should be moved up to have more of an urgent conversation about it. Commissioner Robertson rephrases by saying, a more general discussion to have about zoning requirements impact on cost of construction and how it interfaces with the affordable housing goals. Commissioner Peilen said the city has rights protect to standards, as there are probably some appropriate reasons why they exist. But, sometimes it can get to be micromanaging so it’s good to have more flexibility since it’s not always a one size fits all. Commissioner Kraft brought up that thought of having everyone share their thoughts about the window transparency topic and possibly designating one person to discuss the work plan and the main goals. Commissioner Tatalovich announced that he will not renew for another term, and the School Board will have someone else take his place. Commissioners also discussed the attendance bylaws of the committee and came to the conclusion they will leave it as is, but we will not be posting whether it was excused or unexcused in the official minutes of the meeting. The study session meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.