Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/04/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. APRIL 17, 2019 1.Call to order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2019 3.Hearings A.Mixed use zoning ordinance Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 19-08-ZA 4.Other Business 5.Communications 6.Adjournment STUDY SESSION 1.Accessory dwelling units If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development office, 952.924.2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 1 UNOFFICIAL 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) Lynn 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, Lisa 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. 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. Commissioner Carper asked if the business is a solely owned business or a franchise type of business. 3 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. 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 4 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. The chair opened the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. 5 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 Lisa 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. 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.. 6 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. 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. 7 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. Mr. 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. 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. 8 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. Commissioner Carper brought up page 39 item F, pedestrian scaled signs. He asked for clarification on what a pedestrian scaled sign is. 9 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. Lynn 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. Mr. Carper says they should hear all their different perspectives as they all come from different point of views on matters. 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. 10 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. 11 Meeting: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 17, 2019 Study Session Item: 3A 3A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Mixed Use Zoning District and related amendments Case Number: 19-08-ZA Recommended Action: Chair to close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Division 9. M-X Mixed Use and additional amendments relating to the MX district to land use, parking regulations, sign regulations, and architectural design. (Sections 36-115, 36-361, 36-362, and 36-366). Background: Historically, the City of St. Louis Park rezoned properties to an M-X Mixed Use zoning district and applied a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay to allow for mixed-use buildings. In 2015, the City of St. Louis Park adopted a specific PUD zoning district, which made the existing M-X District obsolete, except for existing PUDs that had previously been approved by the city. On December 17, 2018 the city council approved the St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan for submittal to the Metropolitan Council. It is expected that the Metropolitan Council will approve the plan in April 2019, and the plan will be placed into effect immediately following. The plan re-guides several properties on the Future Land Use Map in the city to mixed use. Therefore, it is a high priority to update the mixed-use zoning ordinance so it is consistent with the St. Louis Park 2040 land use plan. The city proposes amendments to the existing M-X District to provide a zoning district that creates a district-wide standard for mixed-use developments that are site and context sensitive, and will weave more mixed-use buildings into the fabric of St. Louis Park’s built environment. As of today, there are no undeveloped (or underdeveloped) parcels zoned for mixed-use, so the city will need to amend the zoning map to apply this new district to more properties. Since the fall of 2017, the planning commission conducted 10 study sessions, including a walking tour of the West End, to discuss regulations within the MX district including building orientation, scale, height, build-to-lines, building length, uses, density, density bonuses, and the draft ordinance. Items that were not discussed during study sessions, including building materials and references to other portions of the code, have no proposed changes. Excerpts of the following planning commission meeting minutes are provided as attachments to this report. August 16, 2017: primary and secondary frontages, building to street ratio, and setbacks September 6, 2017: setbacks adjacent to streets, height bonuses, façade design 12 October 4, 2017: façade design and screening December 20, 2017: site circulation, parking, loading, maximum building length January 17, 2018: uses July 11, 2018: recap of previously reviewed concepts August 31, 2018: walking tour of West End October 17, 2018: uses and conditions January 16, 2019: density bonuses and draft ordinance March 20, 2019: draft ordinance City council conducted a study session on March 11, 2019 to review new concepts and portions of the draft ordinance. The attached draft ordinance reflects planning commission and city council’s recommendations. At the writing of this report, staff is waiting to hear from the city’s sustainability and Climate Action Plan consultant, LHB, regarding the density bonus point allocation for Environmental, energy, and water resources. This information will be provided during planning commission’s meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached zoning ordinance relating to Division 9. M-X Mixed Use Zoning District including related amendments to land use, parking regulations, sign regulations, and architectural design (Sections 36-115, 36-361, 36-362, and 36- 366). Attachments: Draft ordinance 2040 comprehensive plan future land use map highlighting mixed use guided properties Excerpts from planning commission study session minutes Excerpts from City council study session minutes March 11, 2019 Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor 13 DRAFT Mixed Use Ordinance ARTICLE IV. ZONING DISTRICTS § 36-263 DIVISION 9. M-X MIXED USE DISTRICT Sec. 36-261. Purpose. The purposes of the M-X mixed use district are to: (1)Provide appropriate areas for and facilitate quality mixed use development in activity centers that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use and transportation goals and strategies; (2)Provide a variety of residential housing types and densities to assure activity and support a mix of uses, and enhance the housing choices of city residents; (3)Integrate new mixed use development with its surroundings by encouraging connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles and by assuring sensitive, compatible use, scale, and operational transitions to neighborhood uses; (4)Encourage reductions in impervious surface by minimizing surface parking and retain open space by encouraging taller buildings for high-density uses; and (5)Ensure high quality architectural design and materials, and promote innovative site design. (Code 1976, § 14:5-8A) Sec. 36-262. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Building Height to Street Width means the percentage of the building height compared to the adjacent street width. The street width means half of the right-of-way width from the centerline, including all sidewalks, easements and street yard. This regulation shall not prohibit additional building height with the addition of a stepback. Example: Building height is 60 percent of the street width. | centerline Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 14 Build-to Zone means the minimum and maximum distance a structure may be placed from a lot line. Build-to zones are measured from the outside edge of any public access easement for sidewalk or the right-of-way, if no public access easement for sidewalk is required or exists. Commuter Bicycle Facilities means bike lockers, on-site showers, and a bicycle repair station. Courtyard means an outdoor area enclosed by a building facade on at least 3 sides and open to the sky. Frontage means the building and lot area facing and directly adjacent to a street right-of-way line. Frontage, Primary means a frontage that receives priority over other frontages, defining a higher level of pedestrian orientation. The primary frontages is identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial. If there are two primary streets, or no primary streets, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the most appropriate frontage to serve as the primary street. Orientation of other parcels along the street and status of the street shall be considered. Frontage, Secondary means a frontage that is secondary to the Primary Frontage, requiring less streetwall coverage and lower transparency levels, and permitting more interruptions by driveways. Secondary frontages are all frontages not identified as a primary frontage, and are categorized as a side yard abutting a street. Impervious Site Coverage means the percentage of a lot developed with principal or accessory structures and impervious surfaces, such as driveways, sidewalks, and patios. Inclusionary Commercial Space means a specified reduction of commercial rent only for small local businesses, based on the fair market commercial rents for the building. Lot Line Coverage means the minimum percent of lot frontage that must contain a building. Micro Store Front means a commercial or industrial space a maximum of 1,500 square feet in size only for a small local business. Occupied Space means an interior building space regularly occupied by the building users. It does not include storage areas, utility space, or parking. Pedestrianway means an open and available pathway designed for use by pedestrians; it can be located mid-block allowing pedestrian movement from one street to another without traveling along the block’s perimeter. Small Local Business means a local, independently owned, non-franchised business. Local means located in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Story, Ground. Also referred to as ground floor means the first floor of a building that is level to or elevated above the finished grade on the front and corner facades, excluding basements or cellars. Story, Half means a story either in the base of the building, partially below grade and partially above grade, or a story fully within the roof structure with transparency facing the street. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 15 Story, Upper. Also referred to as upper floor means the floors located above the ground story of a building. Street Face means the facade of a building that faces a street right-of-way. Transparency means the measurement of the percentage of a facade that has highly transparent, low reflectance windows measured between 2’ and 8’ above grade. Mirrored glass is not permitted. Yard, Street means the space on a lot between the principal structure and the primary or secondary street frontage line or street side lot line for the lot and extending to any minimum side or rear setback line. Yard Definition. Yard is defined in Section 36-3 Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following standards shall supplement and, where inconsistent, supersede the definition of Section 36-3: 1.Side and Rear Yards Abutting Other Lots, an Alley, or a Rail Right-of-Way means a property located in an area designated as Mixed Use MX, only yards abutting a lot, an alley, or a rail right-of-way at the lot line, and not a street, waterway or other Primary or Secondary frontage, are considered side or rear yards. 2.Front Yards and Side Yards abutting a street are regulated through the designation of Primary and Secondary frontages. Visible Basement means a half story partially below grade and partially exposed above with required transparency on the street facade. Zoning Administrator means the zoning administrator or her/his designee. Sec. 36-263. Mixed use restrictions and performance standards. The following restrictions and performance standards shall govern structures and uses permitted in any MX mixed use district: (1)All buildings shall have a vertical mix of land uses, such as residential and commercial, with a strong pedestrian orientation. A use on the ground floor must be different from a use on an upper floor. The second floor may be designed to have the same use as the ground floor so long as there is at least one more floor above the second floor that has a different use from the first two floors. At least one of the floors shall contain residential dwelling units. (2)More than one mixed-use building may be placed on one lot in the MX District. (3)Along at least 75 percent of the primary frontage, the building must be designed for non- residential uses. Lobbies and amenity areas serving a residential use in the building shall not count as a non-residential use. (4)All non-residential uses located on the ground floor primary and secondary frontage shall have a direct and primary access to and from the primary and/or secondary frontage building façade and the access shall remain open during business hours. (5)All business activities including but not limited to sales, rentals, service, storage, merchandise display, repair, and processing, except for off-street vehicular parking and off-street loading, shall Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 16 be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this chapter. (6)Outdoor storage shall be prohibited except when specifically permitted elsewhere in this chapter. (7)Business uses shall front on a public way or an interior arcade. (8)All delivery service entrances to a building shall be from a public alley, service-alley, off-street parking lot, or all deliveries shall be made from the curb. (9)All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be located within the building or behind all build-to-lines and shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure which shall be constructed of the same materials as the principal building. (10) There shall be no vehicular access within 50 feet of the intersection of the projection of the nearest curblines of any public streets to a parcel on which a commercial use is operated. (11) No storage, display or parking of vehicles shall be allowed in any of the required yards or landscaped areas. (12) Surface parking spaces, mechanical equipment, refuse and recycling areas, and loading areas shall not be located within any build-to zone, minimum setback, or street yard. (13) New structures and structures which expand the gross square footage of the structure by more than 50 percent shall be required to place all utility service lines underground. Any new service to an existing building shall be placed underground. (14) Vehicular access for all non-residential uses shall be from a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan or as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. (15) Sidewalks shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. (16) A separate pedestrian access shall connect the principal building to the public street or a public trail, on all sides of the lot which front on a public right-of-way or public trail. This access shall be separated from parking areas by curbed, landscaped islands which have a minimum width of 20 feet inclusive of sidewalk. If a transit stop is located on any adjacent public street, access shall be located convenient to that transit stop. Sec. 36-264. Uses. (1)Permitted uses (P). Uses listed in Table 36-264 with a “P” symbol are permitted by-right in the Frontage Types in which they are listed. (2)Uses permitted in limited stories (PL). Uses listed in Table 36-264 with a “PL” symbol are permitted by-right in the Frontage Types in which they are listed, provided that the uses are located in the upper stories of a structure; the basement; or in the ground story, a minimum of 30 feet behind any primary street façade and behind a permitted use. (3)Uses permitted with conditions (PC). Uses listed in Table 36-264 with a “PC” symbol are permitted provided compliance with the listed conditions and requirements. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 17 (4)Uses permitted by conditional use permit (CUP). Uses listed in Table 36-264 with a “CUP” symbol require a Conditional Use Permit; refer to 36-33 Conditional Use Permits. Table 36-264 Mixed Use District Uses Primary Frontage Secondary Frontage RESIDENTIAL & LODGING USES Multifamily Residential PC PC Live-Work Unit PC PC Roominghouse PL PL State-licensed residential facility PL PL Group home/non-statutory PL PL Nursing Home PL PL Hotel/Motel PC PC Bed and Breakfast establishment PC PC CIVIC & INSTITUTIONAL USES Education/Academic PL P Museum/Library Category P P Police/Fire Station PC PC COMMERCIAL USES Brewery/Micro-distillery PC PC Business/trade school/college PL P Dental Office P P Food Service P P Grocery Store PC PC Liquor Store CUP CUP Medical Office P P Offices PL P Private Entertainment (Indoor) CUP CUP Research and development PL P Retail, less than 8,000 square feet P P Retail, 8,000 square feet or larger PC PC Retail, Large Item PC PC Restaurants PC PC Service facilities, less than 8,000 square feet P P Service facilities, 8,000 square feet or larger PC PC INDUSTRIAL USES Catering PC PC Studios PC PC Printing process/supply PC PC Showrooms PC PC TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE USES Communication antennas CUP CUP Sec. 36-265. Uses permitted with conditions (PC). Multifamily Residential Category. (1)Shall be located in the upper stories of a structure; the basement; or in the ground story, a minimum of 30 feet behind any primary street façade and behind a permitted use, or on a secondary, rear, or side facade. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 18 (2)Dwelling unit entrances are not required to be internal to the building, and individual exterior entrances are encourage for ground floor units (3)Balconies shall serve a single dwelling unit (4)Buildings are discouraged from being massive in scale or institutional in appearance. (5)Use may include leasing and/or property management offices, gym or other fitness facilities for tenants, and meeting rooms as accessory uses. Live-Work Unit. (1)The units shall only be located on a Secondary Street Frontage. Hotel/motel. (1)Shall be located in the upper stories of a structure; the basement; or in the ground story, a minimum of 30 feet behind any primary street façade and behind a permitted use. (2)Rooms shall be accessed from the interior of the building. (3)Secondary service uses may also be provided, such as food service, meeting rooms, pools, and fitness rooms as accessory uses. Bed and Breakfast establishment. (1)Shall be located in the upper stories of a structure; the basement; or in the ground story, a minimum of 30 feet behind any primary street façade and behind a permitted use. (2)Rooms shall be accessed from the interior of the building. (3)Secondary service uses may also be provided, such as food service and meeting rooms as accessory uses. Police/Fire Station. (1)Garage doors are permitted on the front facade. (2)Stations are exempt from maximum driveway widths. Brewery/Micro-distillery. (1)The brewery/distillery shall not produce more than 20,000 barrels of malt liquor or cases of hard liquor per year. (2)The following additional conditions apply: a.The maximum overall gross floor area is limited to 20,000 square feet. b.A taproom and/or retail outlet is required and shall be located in the Primary Street storefront of the building. c.The taproom and/or retail outlet shall occupy a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area with no maximum limit. d.Retail outlet does not include liquor store, which shall be permitted only in accordance with the requirements for liquor store uses for the frontage type. (3)This use may also include associated facilities such as offices and small scale warehousing, but distribution is limited to vans and small trucks. Distribution access shall be from the rear. Grocery Store. (1)When the grocery store is part of a mixed use development with residential or office uses above the grocery, the following applies: a.No activity results in any noxious or offensive odors, sounds, vibrations, emissions, or any external nuisances upon adjacent properties. b.Hours of operation, including deliveries, shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. Retail, 8,000 square feet or larger. (1)The retail space shall have an exterior entrance on the primary facade. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 19 (2)The retail space shall be located at a corner of the building or near a primary building entrance. (3)The retail space shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Retail, Large Item (1)The establishment shall be less than 20,000 square feet in size. Restaurant (1) Restaurants with or without intoxicating liquor licenses. a.If there is a wine and/or beer liquor and/or intoxicating liquor license, there shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. Service Facilities, 8,000 square feet or larger. (1)The service space shall have an exterior entrance on the primary facade. (2)The service space shall be located at a corner of the building or near a primary building entrance. (3)The service space shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Catering; studio; printing process/supply; showrooms. (1)This use may also include associated facilities such as offices and small scale warehousing, but distribution is limited to vans and small trucks. Distribution access shall be from the rear. (2)The maximum overall gross floor area is limited to 12,000 square feet. (3)A showroom or retail outlet is permitted. (4)If located on a Secondary Frontage the following additional conditions apply: a.The use is permitted only in specifically designated live/work spaces on the ground floor and with its own exterior entrance. b.Distribution shall be from a designated loading area only. (5)If located on a Primary Frontage, the following additional conditions apply: a.A showroom and/or retail outlet is required and shall be located in the Primary Street storefront of the building. b.The showroom and/or retail outlet shall occupy a minimum of 25 percent of the gross floor area. Sec. 36-266. Uses permitted by conditional use permit (CUP). Uses listed in Table 36-364 with a “CUP” symbol require a Conditional Use Permit; refer to 36-33 Conditional Use Permits. Liquor Store. (1)The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. The distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. Private Entertainment (Indoor). (1)Shall not be located in a building with a residential use. (2)No activity results in any noxious or offensive odors, sounds, vibrations, emissions, or any external nuisances upon adjacent properties. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 20 (3)If there is a wine and/or beer liquor and/or intoxicating liquor license, there shall be no separate bar area within the restaurant. Communication antennas. (1)Shall be developed in accordance with 36-368 Communication towers and antennas, except that communication antennas located in the MX district shall be co-located atop a permitted building. Sec. 36-267 Accessory Uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in any MX district. (1)Accessory Off-Street Parking. The following are types of accessory parking permitted: a.Parking Lot. b.Accessory Parking Ramp. i.Accessory parking ramps may be located only behind the rear of the building. ii.Accessory parking ramps located on the secondary frontage shall have active uses on the ground floor street facing facades, and. iii.Accessory parking ramps shall meet the façade requirements for the building. c.Accessory Parking in the Building. Parking may be provided in the rear of the building or fully in any basement, and shall meet the façade requirements for the building. d.Residential parking may be allowed for more than 24 hours. (2)Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted use and not to exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use. (3)Outdoor seating and service of food and beverage, subject to the following conditions: a.Shall be directly adjacent to the structure containing the associated use; b.No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are permitted if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use; c.The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located within 500 feet of a residential use; and d.Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less. (4)Bar, if accessory to a restaurant, hotel or private entertainment (indoor). (5)Catering, if accessory to a restaurant, food service, delicatessen, grocery store or retail bakery. (6)Break rooms, if accessory to a non-residential use and are not located along the primary frontage. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 21 (7)Visitor lodging associated with residential care facilities. (8)Warehouse/storage which is necessary for a permitted use and not to exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use. (9)Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district. (10) Outdoor sales are permitted only as accessory uses with garden and nursery sales. (11) Public transit stops/shelters. (12) Community gardens (13) Accessory Utility Structures including: a.Anaerobic digesters; b.Small wind energy conversion system, as defined in 36-4 Definitions. c.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either placed on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. d.Cisterns and Rainwater Collection Systems. A container or series of containers for the collection and reuse of rainwater. A cistern may be exempted from inclusion in the Site Impervious Area calculation. e.Where accessory utility structures are permitted with conditions, the following apply: i.Accessory Use. The equipment shall be located on a lot with a building and is a secondary use for the lot. ii.Roof Mounted Location. Roof mounted equipment shall be located per one of the following: 1.Pitched Roof. Locate the equipment on a rear facing surface of the roof, if feasible for communication purposes. 2.Flat Roof. Locate the equipment towards the rear portion of the roof, where visibility is limited from the street to the maximum extent possible. iii.Ground Mounted Location. Ground mounted equipment is limited to the rear yard. Equipment may be located in the side yard if the equipment is screened from the street with an opaque wall, of the same or similar material of the street facade of the building. iv.Height. The height of the equipment is either a maximum of 12 feet or the maximum that is not visible from any street sidewalk, whichever is greater. v.Performance Standards. When noxious or offensive odors, sounds, vibrations, emissions, or any external nuisances upon adjacent properties, including truck traffic, will be generated by this accessory use above any generated by the Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 22 principal use, a conditional use permit is required. Refer to 36-33 Conditional Use Permits. vi.Freestanding Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). Refer to Sec. 36-369, with the exception of the following requirements which shall replace the provisions of Table 36-369 A for all projects within the Mixed use District: 1.Height Limit: 110 feet 2.Maximum Number of WECS per lot: 2 3.Minimum Lot Size: 1.5 acres Sec. 36-268. Dimensional standards and general requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 36-32, the following standards and requirements cannot be modified or waived except as specifically stated: (1)The maximum nonresidential density is 1.5 FAR and the maximum residential density is 50 units per acre. In determining density, the total nonresidential floor area or number of residential units shall be divided by the land associated with each use, including building coverage and parking areas associated with the use and a proportion of the on-site usable open space. Stormwater ponds and public/private streets and alleys shall be excluded from land calculations. Maximum residential densities may be increased by up to 50 percent based on Table 36-268 (a). Table 36-268 (a) 3 points 10% increase in density 6 points 20% increase in density 9 points 30% increase in density 12 points 40% increase in density 15 points 50% increase in density a. Inclusionary housing (maximum 5 points may be earned) i.Meet the requirements of the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy (5 points); b.Environmental, energy, and water resources (maximum 5 points may be earned) i.Meet the requirements of the city’s Green Building Policy (5 points); or ii. Provide 100% of the building’s energy on-site by renewable energy sources (4 points); or iii.Provide a minimum of ___ KW per square foot (3 points). c.Inclusionary commercial (Maximum 4 points may be earned) Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 23 i. Inclusionary commercial space for retail and service less than 8,000 square feet, food service, and restaurant uses (4 points): 1.10 percent of total commercial space provided at 80 percent fair market rent for 10 years; or 2.20 percent of total commercial space provided 90 percent fair market rent for 10 years. ii.Provide 20 percent or up to 5,000 square feet, whichever is less, of the total commercial space as micro storefronts (4 points) d.Travel demand management (maximum 3 points may be earned) i.Complete a travel demand management plan and implement all recommended strategies (2 points) ii.Commuter Bicycle Facilities provided onsite (1 points) 1.In addition to the bicycle parking requirements in Section 36-361, an additional 10 percent of the required bicycle parking facilities shall be provided as bike lockers, on-site showers shall be available for building occupants, and a bicycle repair station shall be provided. e.Gathering spaces (maximum 3 points may be earned) i.Provide and maintain a publically accessible space which may include a plaza, courtyard, or community room (2 points) ii.Provide and maintain a publically accessible community garden (1 points) (2)The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area based on private developable land area. (3)Building shall be constructed to the form requirements specific to the frontage type in Table 36- 268(b). Table 36-268 (b) Primary Frontage Secondary Frontage BUILDING SITING Minimum Primary Lot Line Coverage 80% 50% Build-to Zone 10’ to 15’ 10’ to 20’ Maximum Building Length 200 feeta HEIGHT Building to Street Width Minimum 60% 60% Building to Street Width Maximum 100% 200% Minimum Height 2 stories 2 stories Maximum Height 6 storiesb or 75 feet, whichever is less Primary Ground Story Height 12’ to 20’c All Other Stories Height 10’ to 15’ FAÇADE Minimum Ground Story Transparency 65% 30% Minimum Required Transparency per Story 20% on street facing facades; 12% on rear and side facades Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 24 Primary Frontage Secondary Frontage Entrance Elevation Each street entrance shall be within 30” of adjacent street sidewalk average grade a.Maximum Building Length may be increased up to 50 percent if a pedestrianway is provided. These pedestrianways can be pedestrian easements and pathways or exterior through building linkages at least every 200 feet. b.Step-backed stories. All stories that exceed the maximum building to street width shall be stepped back from the front façade a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 30 feet. c.Tall stories: 18’ or more in floor-to-floor ground story height counts as 2 stories toward maximum building height. (4)Side and Rear Yards: a.Buildings 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. (5)Transparency. a.Large sections of walls with no windows shall be prohibited along the ground floor primary and secondary frontages; b.Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window and door area. c.No more than 10 percent of the ground floor window and door area shall be opaque glass; d.Visibility into the building shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three feet; e.Areas of glazed transoms above a canopy or architectural feature element are encouraged; f.Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. (6)Buildings constructed after adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived must utilize at least 80 percent class I materials on each building face and no class III materials on any building face that is visible from public areas within the development or from off the site. The class I materials requirement may be reduced to 60 percent if a balance of architectural interest and visual compatibility is provided through approval of the following: a.A variety of compatible materials and colors; b.Architectural features; c.Canopies over sidewalks; and d.Pedestrian-scale details. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 25 (7)Parapet walls shall be utilized to completely screen rooftop equipment from ground and street level view and rooftop equipment must be painted to match the color of the roof in order to minimize the visual impact as viewed from other buildings. (8)Developments shall include sidewalks and/or bikeways along all private and public street rights-of- way as determined appropriate and on-site pedestrian/bicycle facilities that provide logical connections to off-site uses and are separated from off-street surface parking areas by curbed, landscaped islands a minimum of 20 feet in width inclusive of sidewalk. (9)Developments served by public transit must provide at least one transit stop that conveniently serves the development. (10)Driveway location. Vehicular driveway access is managed through the primary and secondary street frontages. The order of access is as follows: a.An alley permits unlimited access. b.If no alley exists, one driveway per secondary street frontage is permitted. c.If no other option exists, one driveway may be permitted off the primary street and shared access with abutting properties is encouraged. (11)Signage shall be allowed with the following conditions: a.Pylon signs are prohibited; b.Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle or automobile circulation and visibility. c.Maximum allowable number, sizes, heights and yards for signs shall be regulated by Section 36-362, MX requirements. d.Wall signs of non-residential uses shall only be placed on the ground floor and exterior walls of the occupied tenant lease space, and/or a monument sign. e.Wall signs shall not be included in calculating the aggregate sign area on the lot if they meet the following outlined conditions: i.Non-residential wall signs permitted by this section that do not exceed seven percent of the exterior wall area of the ground floor tenant lease space. ii.The sign is located on the exterior wall of the ground floor tenant lease space from which the seven percent sign area was derived. iii.No individual wall sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area. f.Pedestrian scale signs visible from public sidewalks shall be encouraged. Such signs shall be no more than three feet in vertical dimension unless flush with the building wall. (12)A development agreement is required as part of the development approval and shall address, at a minimum, approved site and building design criteria, approved sign locations and design criteria, construction phasing, density bonuses, specifications for inclusionary commercial space, Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 26 cash escrow or letter of credit for construction of on-site and off-site improvements generated by the development, and maintenance. (13)The development shall comply with all other applicable chapter provisions unless specifically modified by subsections (1) through (12) of this section. Amendment to Section 36-115 Land Use Land uses permitted in limited stories. Land uses listed as “permitted in limited stories” are permitted subject to all of the requirements of land uses permitted by right plus those additional controls which specify the story of a building the use can occur. Land uses permitted in limited stories do not require a public hearing process. *********** 36-361 Parking Regulations ** (k)Design Requirements ** (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-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. (Ord. No. 2466-15, 5-18-2015) c.In the C-1 and MX districts district: 1. Parking spaces and drive aisles shall not be located between a building and a street, except that a through lot may have parking between the building and less prominent street, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 2. The minimum yard requirement for parking spaces and drive aisles shall be zero (0.0) when located adjacent to a non-residential district 3. The minimum yard requirement for parking spaces and drive aisles shall be eight feet when abutting a residentially zoned property. 4. The minimum yard requirement for parking spaces shall be five feet when adjacent to a street. (Ord. No. 2466-15, 5-18-15) *********** 36-362 Sign Regulations ** (f)General provisions. Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted accessory use in all use districts: ** Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 27 (12)Durable Materials. All permanent sign faces and supports shall be made of durable materials. Canvas, cloth and similar materials such as flexible vinyl, are not allowed except for canopies, awnings and temporary signs other than pedestrian signs. Awnings shall be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal, and/or glass. Plastic, vinyl, and backlit awnings are prohibited. All permanent wood signs must be constructed of durable hardwood products. The wood must be treated against rot and decay, and cannot be constructed of plywood, chipped wood, hardboard, fiber board or similar materials. Sign Support structures shall not be constructed of wood ************ 36-366 Architectural design ** (b) Standards. (1) Building Design. ** g.All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year. This section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use district, two or more buildings on the same lot in the MX district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible. Meeting of April 17, 2019 Subject: Mixed-Use District 28 2040 comprehensive plan future land use map highlighting mixed use guided properties 29 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA AUGUST 16, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Robertson, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Richard Person STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Joe Ayers-Johnson, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison 4.Mixed-use Zoning District Concept Review – Basic Building Form Jennifer Monson, Planner, gave a presentation. She explained that in 2015 the city adopted a specific PUD zoning district, reducing the effectiveness and usefulness of the existing MX District. She said the city is now proposing an update to the existing MX District to provide a district that allows a standard for mixed use developments in the MX district that are site and context sensitive, and do not require a PUD. Ms. Monson said staff desired to present options for best determining basic building form at the meeting. Then at future study sessions staff will present additional MX code options for consideration including permitted uses, setbacks, height bonuses articulation standards, landscape requirements, etc. Ms. Monson discussed primary and secondary frontages and building orientations. She presented options for determining primary and secondary frontages based on street classification in the Comprehensive Plan. Commercial and active uses were discussed. Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, discussed height standards. She said staff is proposing looking at scale and the ratio between the building height and the street width, rather than having a hard maximum cap to height. She spoke about an overall goal of MX district to encourage pedestrian activity and connectivity; saying that ratio is one way to facilitate that. She asked the Commission to consider what ratios they are comfortable with. She presented renderings illustrating different ratios. Commissioner Peilen said one of her concerns is fear of a cookie-cutter look all over the city. Ms. Kramer said there is variety because the streets are different widths. She added that the mixed use zoning district designation wouldn’t be used all over the city. 30 Commissioner Carper discussed transitions between housing which is adjacent to mixed use in the city. He spoke about Bridgewater and Ellipse. Mr. Walther noted that transitions will be discussed later in the presentation. Ms. Kramer said staff will be providing existing examples that the Commission is likely familiar with. Also, Commissioners are welcome to share examples they would like us to consider emulating. Commissioner Carper spoke about development in Vancouver, B.C., which uses more transparent building materials for openness. Joe Ayers-Johnson, Community Development intern, spoke about transitions from MX to residential, and how mixed use buildings should relate to surrounding residential or other low density residential zoning districts. He spoke about options for height and setback transitions adjacent to single family residential zoning districts. He discussed common transition techniques of setback and stepbacks to create a visual break. He explained how the city’s current PUD district regulates heights and setbacks in these transition areas. Commissioner Carper asked why the same language couldn’t be used. Mr. Walther said staff is comfortable with using the same approach but wanted confirmation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Ayers-Johnson presented examples from the Ellipse development where the building was stepped back. Commissioner Carper spoke about the shading ordinance and the Ellipse. Mr. Ayers-Johnson shared specific examples of the stepped back approach with previous St. Louis Park developments. Mr. Walther asked for reactions on approaches being presented. Commissioners Kanne and Peilen commented that it seems to make sense. Commissioner Carper asked about making a wider curb and more green area, and have the first portion of the building taller, rather than using that first step back. Ms. Kramer responded that wouldn’t have as much impact on the ratio. Commissioner Kanne said it looks good and the examples do make it seem more open. She asked which areas would have walkability as a focus. 31 Mr. Walther responded that the city has a goal for walkability everywhere, but there are community sidewalk grids every quarter mile. That would be the higher priority and would likely coincide with areas that may be suitable for an MX zoning designation. Mr. Walther said staff’s preference would be to pick one frontage rather than having two primary frontages. This gives more flexibility. Mr. Walther said staff will be illustrating mixed use concepts further. Additional details will be provided and the discussion will continue. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Torrey Kanne, Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison STUDY SESSION MINUTES September 6, 2017 1.Mixed-use Zoning District Concept Review—Building setbacks, step backs, façade details and buffer yards Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, explained the discussion item is for continued feedback from the commission before staff generates an official request for a zoning amendment on the topic. Jennifer Monson, Planner, noted that the topics of building orientation, building height to street width ratio, and transitions between residential districts were introduced at the August 16 study session. 32 Ms. Monson gave a summary of the direction staff proposes for building orientation with a primary street frontage and a secondary street frontage. She stated that there wasn’t agreement on a specific ideal ratio. Staff proposes a range of acceptable ratios. Minimum a nd maximum overall heights will be discussed at a later date. Regarding transitions between mixed- use buildings and R1/R2 districts, Ms. Monson said staff proposes using the existing PUD language for buildings within the M-X district. Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, discussed height bonuses. She said examples include creating public space on site, creating bicycle or pedestrian paths that connect different public spaces, public art, water features, innovative storm water treatment on site, green roofs and other high performance green standards, more affordable housing units, and affordable commercial space. She asked if these should be bonuses or required throughout the district. Commissioner Robertson said he liked the idea of a bonus, providing options and creativity to the developer and architect. Commissioner Carper asked who would be authorized to do negotiations on bonuses. Mr. Walther said ideally it would be more formulaic to avoid negotiating these issues on each site and application. M-X would be a stand-alone district that doesn’t have to operate with a PUD. The Commission would review and the City Council would approve any formulas that staff develops when preparing the ordinance. Commissioner Johnston-Madison discussed green space and features of Excelsior & Grand and Uptown developments. She said she would like to see more green space in M-X. Commissioner Peilen said she had concerns about requirements on the makeup of housing. An option is one thing, but a requirement is another thing. Mr. Walther asked the commission to consider items they wouldn’t want to be included as a bonus, and items that should instead be required. Commissioner Robertson said green roof might not be with height bonus as it is mostly used with storm water management. He said he loved the idea of affordable commercial space. Commissioners agreed about that. Commissioner Peilen said she liked the idea of options. Commissioners discussed height and what a development like Excelsior & Grand might look like with another story. Ms. Monson suggested bringing this question back to a future session. Ms. Kramer discussed setbacks which minimize the impact on adjacent parcels and on the street level. She showed diagrams with 2-story versus 3-story where the 3rd story is stepped back so not as visible from the street. She spoke about tying it to the height bonuses and stepping back. It wouldn’t then impact the building-to-width street ratio, or impact pedestrian realm, but the developer still gets the extra story. Ms. Kramer discussed different step back requirements for front and rear buildings. 33 Commissioner Carper spoke about angle of visibility and complaints regarding the Bally’s site proposal. He noted concerns from residents to th e south that by allowing the Bally’s site to be one story taller it would be above the tree line of the residential on Vallacher and in view of the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnston-Madison remarked that at this point the discussion is general, not about specific sites. It’s all relative to the area. She added that the Commission did not recommend approval for the Bally’s site development. Mr. Walther said staff’s intention as we are developing these codes will be to use some test sites. Whether or not they are rezoned to M-X or not they will at least fit the criteria that might be suitable for M-X. Then it can be tested to show what these rules look like when applied. Ms. Kramer discussed setbacks versus build-to lines keeping buildings relatively close to the street to create the street edge. Instead of just a hard line such as setback, there would be a build-to zone. The building has to fall within the zone for a certain percentage of the building frontage, so there would still be some flexibility. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she still thinks more green space is needed. Mr. Walther said he wonders about the right amount of green space the Commission is looking for. He said staff is thinking to propose a larger setback than what we’ve been seeing for that reason. The struggle is how much is enough, how much is too much? He asked commissioners to share examples of areas and properties that seem about right to them. Commissioner Robertson spoke about courtyard houses and doing bigger houses on smaller lots with good landscaping. Ms. Kramer provided definitions and illustrations of different considerations that go into a selecting a build-to line. Ms. Monson asked commissioners to consider their preference for specific setbacks based on adjacent uses or the alternative based on building code. Ms. Monson discussed building siting and façade articulation to identify how the building interacts to the sidewalk and build-to zones, how to make a large building seem smaller, and courtyards. Commissioner Robertson said he was a little uncomfortable with requiring courtyards. He said it might be if you provide a courtyard you get something for it. But to have a rule that you must include a courtyard open to sky means you are designing my building and I might not like that. There might be a reason I don’t want to do that. I might pass on what you can offer me. He said that becomes more like building design, not street design. Chair Peilen said she agreed that it might get too heavy handed, too specific and too controlling. 34 Ms. Monson spoke about façade divisions which visually break up the building. There was a discussion about formula and language. Commissioner Robertson suggested language saying large facades shall be broken up architecturally, but not indicating required numbers. He said a lot of cities are trying to provide formulas. Building design is not a formula. Mr. Walther asked how we prevent bad design, and how one would decide if what the architect provided has met the intent of the regulation. Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, spoke about formulas as the simplest thing. For instance, you’ve got to have a total of 20 ft. of depth added somewhere in the façade. Commissioner Robertson spoke about percentages of building materials as an example. He said it gives the architect a palette. There was a discussion about making M-X language easy to understand, making it flexible and inspire to do better. Commissioner Carper said the bonus concept is a way to inspire. Ms. Monson and Mr. Walther stated that other topics for future discussion may include side and rear buffer, screening and landscaping, maximum height, distance of step backs, width of step backs, minimum commercial depth/uses, ground floor transparency, site circulation, trash location, entrances and their locations, parking and loading, landscaping, and uses. Commissioners said staff should decide the order of topics to be presented. Commissioners said they prefer continuing with the discussion format rather than having staff present proposed ordinance language for consideration. The study session was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary 35 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 4, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, MEMBERS ABSENT: Ethan Rickert (youth member) STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 4, 2017 6:00 P.M. 1.Mixed-Use Zoning District Concept Review – Façade Details and Screening Jennifer Monson, Planner, asked the Commission for their feedback on façade details and screening options for new mixed-use buildings within proposed amendments to the mixed-use zoning ordinance. Commissioners commented that all the new mixed-use buildings are looking the same. Commissioner Kanne asked if there has ever been a conversation about what makes a classic look. Commissioner Robertson commented that he understands the desire to have good looking buildings. He said sometimes being too prescriptive makes things start to look the same. He commented that transparency for ground floor commercial does give pedestrians a sense of safety. He doesn’t know if it’s necessary to zone for it. Ms. Monson spoke about the ability in the PUD process to negotiate on the amount of fenestration on the ground floor and making sure that fenestration is transparent. Ms. Monson spoke about the responsibility of planners and the Commission to make sure the public realm is what it should be. Commissioner Robertson said basically it goes back to form-based zoning. How does the building relate to the street? Not just the height but the building envelope. 36 Commissioner Carper discussed commonly designed flat street level entrys differentiated by color. He discussed the use of in-set doorways which are seen in older buildings. He noted that design does take away from square footage, however. Chair Peilen spoke about balance. She said a development needs guidelines but they shouldn’t be too prescriptive as ideas of beauty change. Buildings should have character. Commissioner Robertson stated we don’t need zoning to do good design. A client wants unique, good design. Chair Peilen spoke about building materials and commented that building materials over the years change what we get. Ms. Monson said the city’s current architectural standards are pretty basic and pretty easy to apply. They require 60% of the building to be Class I materials. They don’t specify transparency of ground floor currently but she suggested a certain percentage should be included as a minimum. Commissioner Robertson said maybe at corners or around the entry we want a bit of transparency. He said he doesn’t know of any architect who thinks the 60% requirement is restrictive. There are so many materials which can be used. He suggested not specifying what architects have to do; but making it clear what they can’t do. Ms. Monson commented that we are trying to make the best projects for the city and the long term. Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, discussed façade planes, which allows flexibility through ratios and divisions that are offset from the rest of the facade. That can provide consideration of the overall area, breaks up building mass, creates visual interest and improves interaction with the street. We want our focus to always consider the pedestrian and public realm. Ms. Kramer discussed higher standards for prominent building corners. Commissioner Robertson asked if that is done through setbacks. Ms. Kramer spoke about corner features, pedestrian plazas, special roof forms and more visibility at prominent building corners. Commissioners said they were interested in seeing corner standards included in an M-X amendment. Ms. Monson discussed side and rear screening so that landscaping and screening can benefit adjacent residential buildings as well as the mixed use buildings, sometimes creating a special neighborhood space. She also spoke about the Guidelines for the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. which included creating a 10 ft. wide zone that includes a fence and landscaping buffer to separate the more intense uses in M-X or commercial from the residential buildings. 37 Commissioner Kanne said she liked the idea of special areas as discussed, adding that it seemed very area-specific. Ms. Monson suggested the next study session could include more on building design, as well as site design, circulation access and loading docks. Commissioner Robertson commented that loading dock areas are changing by becoming smaller and more efficient. The study session was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 20, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson 1.MX District Topics Jennifer Monson, Planner, introduced the fourth study session discussion on Mixed Use District. Site circulation, loading zones, parking design and building length are the current topics. Driveway circulation and design Ms. Monson said staff proposes driveway to be located on the secondary frontages and alley frontages in order to increase and maintain pedestrian realm along the primary frontages of the building. Staff would like to establish a maximum driveway width. Staff recommends using language proposed in the draft form-based code which requires a maximum driveway width of 22 ft. for a two-way driveway, shared access for two abutting properties is encouraged; and interconnected street patterns. Driveway locations would focus on certain areas of the building. Move traffic toward the alley, or secondary street frontage if on corner lot with no alley. Loading zones and docks 38 Staff proposes designated loading zone areas provided for residential tenants; shared internal loading and trash space; move it off the street frontages. Staff recommends using the existing language within the zoning district. Off-street parking Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, said staff proposes regulating where parking lots and structures can be located on the parcels. There would be different location requirements depending on land use and street designation. Staff proposeds these regulations to minimize visibility of surface parking in the district; create consistent building frontage and encourage active uses; to make sure there are public pedestrian connections. Ms. Kramer reviewed language from the draft form-based code. Ms. Kramer stated a parking ramp as a primary structure would require a CUP. As an accessory structure, it would be permitted with all uses/frontages, with conditions. It would be fully screened in the rear yard. Ramps to be located in rear or side of structure. Staff proposes the use of an entry tower which would define the pedestrian entrance/exit separate from vehicular entrance. The entry tower would directly access the sidewalk or public realm. Commissioner Robertson said he was thinking of Texa-Tonka where the lot is adjacent to the retail strip. He said he is currently working on a situation where the developer is trying to maximize the adjacent lot. The whole lot is surface parking lot. He asked if that would be allowed in the MX District. Ms. Kramer responded that surface parking on the main road would not be allowed as the principal use of a lot in the MX District. Structured parking may be allowed depending on various issues. Chair Peilen remarked that it sounds like it would become more difficult for people who need to use cars to get there. She said for all of our concern about pedestrians, people do still need to drive places for retail to succeed. Ms. Kramer said on-street parking and surface parking would still be provided, but it would be located behind the building so the building has a street presence with retail and pedestrian activity, and plaza, and the surface parking wou ldn’t dominate the view on the main road; something like Excelsior & Grand and Ellipse on Excelsior. Maximum building length Ms. Monson said this helps regulate the mass of the building along the street; increases opportunities for pedestrian and vehicle access through site; decreases scale and massing of building; creates a more connected network; and allows space for utilities between the buildings. She reviewed some of the building lengths in St. Louis Park. The city currently regulates building length only through subdivision ordinance, which allows a block to be a maximum of 600 ft. long. Staff would like Planning Commission guidance on length. Staff wonders if the city could regulate and require smaller buildings for better access through the site for both vehicles and pedestrians Commissioner Robertson said he likes the idea. He said it varies enough though so you’d have to look at block lengths. He said it’s hard to come up with a number. Might be better off 39 suggesting: with a block longer than X the building shall be split in two with X ft. wide alley between or driveway between them. If there is parking behind, then you would need to split the building. Definitely have parking behind. Trash pick-up/trash room would be good between buildings. Commissioner Tatalovich asked if determining maximum building length would be for utility access and aesthetics. Ms. Monson replied it helps with utilities, circulation and massing of the building. Commissioner Carper suggested looking at the West End for ideas on passageways through buildings. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said there is a provision similar to this in the Subdivision Ordinance. But, if there is a project that doesn’t include a subdivision and the ordinance doesn’t apply, having this rule on MX zoning would reinforce the policy. Commissioner Kanne said it makes sense to establish a number similar to Uptown numbers. She asked if 50th & France is the same concept with parking behind businesses and lots of pedestrian activity. She spoke about a comfortable feel at 50 th & France. Chair Peilen said establishing a maximum building length is more usable and workable but part of it feels a little like Big Brother and a little cookie-cutter to her. Commissioner Robertson said discussion of a maximum building length fits in with earlier discussions about breaking up facades, alcoves, green spaces, interior corridors and outdoor dining. Ms. Monson thanked the commission for feedback and said staff would prepare proposed language. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Office Assistant OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 17, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Richard Person 40 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther 3. Mixed-Use Zoning District Concept Review – Transparency and Uses Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, said staff is defining transparency as: measurement of the percentage of a façade that has highly transparent, low reflective windows. She spoke about ground floor/pedestrian zone transparency and upper floor transparency requirements. Transparency is being discussed to promote “eyes on the street”: a concept that if more people can see the street they can interact with it, it’s more comfortable for pedestrians, and it is safer. It can also contribute positively to the scale and massing of the building and creates a more active street front. Ms. Kramer provided example language related to transparency from different approved PUDs in the city. She also gave example language from the draft form-based code. She reviewed proposed transparency requirements for the MX District. Jennifer Monson, Planner, discussed uses. Generally we have: permitted uses, permitted with conditions, and conditional use permit. Staff proposes those three uses plus Permitted in Limited Stories (stories above the ground floor) for the MX District. She reviewed specific use items in two categories: primary frontage allowed and secondary frontage allowed. In the Hotel/Inn category Commissioners felt lobby, retail and restaurant should be on the ground floor. There were questions and uncertainties about Retail Category 8,000 sq. ft. or larger. Ms. Monson said she will bring examples for the next discussion. Regarding Office Category, Ms. Monson said currently office is not allowed on ground floor with primary frontage. She asked if we want office on ground floor or keep it above. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said office should be allowed but on upper floors only. Ms. Monson gave examples of smaller office hybrids with a secondary frontage on ground floor. Commissioners Johnston-Madison and Person agreed ground floor office depends on the office use and need for walk-in traffic. The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Office Assistant OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 41 JULY 11, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Carl Robertson, Alanna Franklin (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Peilen, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson STUDY SESSION MINUTES 2.Mixed Use District Jennifer Monson, Planner, introduced the topic. She presented proposed amendments which have developed from previous commission discussions. Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that she would like to see opportunities for outdoor gathering spaces similar to “parklets” and gave examples of the outdoor seating in the West End. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Administrator, discussed ways to create those kinds of spaces and making corners more active. He spoke about the Ellipse development. He mentioned the staircase on the corner of the 4800. The Chair commented that a visual like the staircase is good when it is also useful. Comments were made about Fresh Thyme. Commissioner Eckholm spoke about secondary frontage and transparency. Ms. Monson said staff will work up some case studies on where these MX buildings will go, based on land use guidance in the 2040 Comp Plan and requirements. The Chair spoke about maximum building length. He suggested doing a tour of examples. Commissioner Eckholm spoke about Bloomington’s rezoning of the Southtown development and how it is becoming more of a mixed use urban area. He said some of St. Louis Park’s older strip malls are still guided commercial under the 2040 plan. He asked if some of these areas might be better served as mixed use if the large commercial uses leave. 42 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA October 17, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Alanna Franklin (unexcused) STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Jennifer Monson STUDY SESSION 2.Mixed Use Zoning District Concept Review Jennifer Monson, planner, said staff desires the commission’s feedback on the proposed uses and density bonus options for the mixed-use zoning ordinance. She reviewed the four proposed uses and use regulations for the MX district. There was a lengthy discussion about the proposed requirement that service space can be located on the ground floor only. Staff agreed to refine conditions for service facilities, 8,000 square feet or larger. Staff agreed to refine the communication antennas section. City Council Study Session Excerpt Minutes March 11, 2019 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Mayor Pro Tem Thom Miller, and Margaret Rog. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano and Rachel Harris. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Police Chief Harcey, Sergeant Weigel, Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Planner (Ms. Monson), Management Assistant (Ms. Carrillo Perez), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guest: Brad Scheib, HKGI Consultants. 3. Mixed-use zoning district amendments Ms. Monson and Mr. Walther presented. They asked the council for feedback on the proposed amendments to the mixed use zoning district. Ms. Monson stated properties in the city 43 currently zoned M-X mixed use were required to apply for a PUD to allow mixed-use buildings. Then in 2015, the city adopted a specific PUD zoning district, which essentially made the existing M-X district obsolete. The city proposes amendments to the existing M-X district to provide a zoning district that creates district-wide standards for mixed-use development that are site and context sensitive, and will weave more mixed-use buildings into the fabric of St. Louis Park’s built environment. The city will need to amend the zoning map to apply this new district to more properties. Councilmembers Brausen and Hallfin thanked the staff for their work on this, and stated they liked it. Councilmember Mavity asked if staff knows what the impact might be on increased density or affordability, in light of these amendments. Ms. Monson stated the sites that are guided to change to mixed use in the St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan are all larger sites which are suitable to provide the target density ranges and inclusionary housing. Councilmember Rog thanked staff for their work on this, and asked if this creates a district-wide or city-wide standard. Mr. Walther stated this will only apply to the mixed use district, not the whole city or other districts within the city. Councilmember Rog stated she liked the density bonus idea presented by staff, and would like an opportunity to look at the list and provide feedback on the density points. Ms. Monson stated staff can send this to council for further review and feedback. Ms. Monson added staff is still working on defining sustainability targets to award density points, and defining affordable commercial space and fair market rent for each building. Councilmember Brausen added he likes the density bonus approach and asked if staff is looking to expand this into other areas of the city. Mr. Walther stated not yet, adding this is a test at this point, and may be applied elsewhere in the city in the future. Councilmember Mavity asked after the Metropolitan Council approves the city’s comprehensive plan, how long until all the zoning changes must be finalized. Mr. Walther stated the city has 9 months to bring the zoning into conformance with the plan, adding any changes will be brought forward to the council in stages and by priority level based on whether there are conflicts between the plan and zoning code. The comprehensive plan is a 20-year plan and some policy direction in the plan is intended to be implemented over the next 10 years, not in the next 9 months. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated overall the ordinance makes sense and he also likes the density bonuses, adding they align with the city’s priorities. He asked about some of the parcels noted and if they should have included additional parcels in the city to be guided and rezoned to mixed use. He asked once this is all completed, will there be any chances for changes in the future. Mr. Walther stated the council can amend the comprehensive plan and zoning at any time, adding the present plan re-guided properties in the comprehensive plan based upon previous small area planning efforts over the past decade, multiple study session discussions 44 with the Planning Commission, public input and at least two city council study sessions on land use specifically. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked why the Wayside House was on the list. Mr. Walther stated the property has been guided and zoned for mixed use development since the Park Commons planning in the late 1990’s. The present use was already established and included as a permitted use in the district when the M-X district was first established in the community. 45 Meeting: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 17, 2019 Study Session Item: 1 1.Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Accessory Dwelling Units Recommended Action: No action at this time. Provide feedback to staff on the proposed zoning amendment and the provided policy questions. Background: An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a self-contained residential unit with its own living room, kitchen, and bathroom. ADUs are permanent installations that are legally part of a larger property that includes a standard single family house. This housing is designed to be flexible, and can generate rental income for the homeowners. ADUs can sometimes be referred to as: carriage or coach houses, accessory apartments, backyard cottages, secondary dwelling units, granny flats, mother-in-law suites, second suites or garden apartments. These units may be located inside the principal building on a lot, or may be located in a detached accessory building on the same parcel. ADUs have the potential to meet some of St. Louis Park’s housing and land use goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Permitting ADUs in the city also helps fulfill the following city council strategic priority: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 46 Types of ADUs: 47 Benefits of ADUs: 1.Expands housing options for neighborhoods already built out in ways that don’t alter the character of the existing neighborhoods. 2.Homeowners can earn income to pay other household expenses. 3.Serves lifecycle housing needs (i.e. can assist people aging in place and downsizing). 4.Provides independent housing for friends, family, and caregivers that is less expensive than assisted living or skilled nursing facilities. 5.Reduces environmental impacts by less energy consumption and reduce transportation- related environmental impacts. 6.Provides more affordable housing option to address housing market challenges. 7.Supports the local economy through the construction and maintenance of ADUs. ADU benefits based on type: •Interior: little perceived change from the exterior •Attached: easily made ADA accessible, more ideal for supportive living arrangements (caregivers, elderly relatives) •Detached: provides the most independent living arrangements, does not affect design of primary home Challenges of ADUs: For many private homeowners, financing is the biggest obstacle to developing an ADU on their own. ADU challenges based on type: •Interior: Adding a separate entrance, cannot exceed square footage of primary dwelling unit •Attached: Loss of yard area, must conform to zoning code (height, ground floor area, yard setbacks, etc.) •Detached: Height requirements may make the ADU infeasible, fire separation between dwelling units ADUs in the Twin Cities: An estimated 18 cities in the Twin Cities metro region have policies allowing ADUs. Approximately 150 permitted ADUs exist in the region; many more unpermitted ADUs may exist throughout the metro. The majority of permitted ADUs are located in Minneapolis (100+), Minnetonka (30), and Stillwater (16). Common Policy Practices. Cities with longstanding ADU ordinances include Vancouver (BC); Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Santa Cruz, California. Common design guidelines include: •One ADU per lot •Homeowner required to live on site •Off street parking for ADU unit not required •Exterior design regulations •Floor area limits 48 Next steps: Staff will share the results of the incorporate planning commission feedback into a study session discussion for city council at a later date. Once council gives staff their feedback, a draft ordinance will be presented to planning commission for their formal recommendation. Further information on ADUs can be found in recently released research and policy guide from the Family Housing Fund. In addition, Family Housing Fund published Home + home Twin Cities ADU Guidebook for Homeowners that may be of interest to commissioners, but staff has not included in the report. Attachments: Family Housing Fund policy brief: ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region, and Overview of Twin Cities municipal ADU policies Prepared by: Akua Y. Opoku, Community Development Intern Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor 49 ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are a flexible, neighborhood-scale solution to regional housing needs. Cities can encourage ADUs as part of their overall housing strategy by adopting proven policies. POLICY BRIEF 50 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 What makes ADUs good for cities? ADUs provide affordable options in the private market: Most ADU rents are affordable to a household earning less than $56,000 annually.1 • ADUs represent gentle, or “hidden” density as a form of small-scale infill housing. • ADUs provide access for renters to established, well-connected neighborhoods. • ADUs are built by homeowners on existing lots, providing new housing without expensive land acquisition costs, and add value to the property, which can lead to increased property tax revenue for a city. • ADUs typically serve one- and two-person households, a growing demographic segment which comprises the majority of Twin Cities households.2 • ADUs support stable homeownership by serving lifecycle housing needs. Over time, rental income provided by an ADU can help homeowners pay their mortgages or save up. Homeowners may use their ADU to house family members who need care, or they may move into the ADU themselves to downsize. • ADUs are environmentally-friendly housing options because they are smaller and use less energy than the average home. They help reduce transportation- related environmental impacts when they are located near employment centers and established public transit routes.3 • ADUs support the local economy, as homeowners typically hire local construction and design firms to build them. • ADUs help create vibrant neighborhoods as new residents increase the customer base for nearby businesses and services. ADUs are often known as “carriage houses,” “in-law suites,” and “granny flats.” They are adjacent or attached to a primary home, and have their own entrance, kitchen, living area, and bathroom. ADUs can be located within a home, attached to a home, or as a detached structure in a backyard (sometimes above a garage). ADUs are a unique housing form created by individual homeowners and scattered throughout neighborhoods. What is an ADU? 1 Rent data from FHFund survey results. See also: Garcia, David. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Dec. 2017. ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf 2 Metropolitan Council. Thrive MSP 2040 Housing Policy Plan. July 2015. p. 9 3 See Stephan, A., Crawford, R.H., 2016. The relationship between house size and life cycle energy demand: implications for energy efficiency regulations for buildings. Energy 116 (Part 1), 1158–1171. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.038 A 2014 study found that ADU residents in Portland were less likely than the average to own cars (State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. Accessory dwelling units in Portland, Oregon: evaluation and interpretation of a survey of ADU 51 Why do we need ADUs as a housing option? ADUs can help reduce pressures on the regional housing market, including: • Increasing demand for more housing units: To meet the needs of anticipated workforce growth and other population trends, the seven-county Twin Cities region needs to add nearly 13,000 units of housing each year through 2040.4 ADUs engage private homeowners as a new set of partners addressing this housing need, without public subsidy. • Low supply of rental housing stock: Throughout the Twin Cities metro area, vacancy rates for studio and one-bedroom units are 2.1% and 2.3%, respectively— far below a healthy rate of 5% or more.5 Adding ADUs in existing neighborhoods helps to address this gap. • Cost pressures for renters: The greatest demand over the next 20 years will be for rental units priced below $1,875/month (in 2019 dollars), as ADUs typically are.6 • Smaller households: The type of new housing needed in the coming decades will be affected by changing demographic trends. Nearly half of the region’s projected household growth will be individuals living alone, and ADUs are typically designed for these smaller households.7 • Aging population: Four-fifths of household growth will be in older households headed by individuals aged 65 and older, many seeking options to downsize in their own neighborhoods; ADUs provide this option.8 Where can I find ADUs? Currently, an estimated 18 cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area have policies permitting ADUs and approximately 150 permitted ADUs exist in the region. However, ADUs have always existed in the Twin Cities. FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Eric & Chrissi Larsen inside their ADU Hidden Density Can you spot the modern, spacious ADU behind this home in Saint Paul? 4 Met Council Housing Policy Plan. p. 9 5 Marquette Advisors Apartment Trends, 1st Quarter 2018. 6 FHFund/Lisa Sturtevant & Associates, 2018, forthcoming 7 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 9 8 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 9 9 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 151: The region needs 9,550 new units of housing to meet the needs of households earning between 51-80% of the Area Median Income by 2030. Per Metropolitan Council 2017 estimates, there are approximately 721,035 single-family homes in the Twin Cities region. stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=R11000 How much housing could ADUs provide? ADUs are a cost-effective way to meet a substantial portion of the Twin Cities region’s future housing need without public subsidy. If ADUs in the seven-county metro area became as common as they are in Portland, Oregon (representing about 1.5% of single-family homes), we could create 11,000 new housing units, potentially meeting most of the region’s need for new housing for households who earn $40,000-50,000 per year.9 11,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS 52 How can local policies support ADU development? The evidence is clear: local government policies and practices that reduce regulatory and cost burdens make a critical difference in whether ADUs can reach their full potential for communities. • I n Austin, Texas, allowing larger ADUs (up to 1,100 square feet) and reducing other requirements10 paved the way for permit requests to rise nearly tenfold. • In Portland, Oregon, annual ADU permit volume increased from just 24 (in 2009) to 615 (in 2016) when it waived development fees for ADUs, saving homeowners $8,000-12,000 per unit.11 • In Los Angeles, California, ADU permits jumped from 80-90 per year to 1,980 in 2017, after California’s state legislature required cities to adopt ADU policies.12 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Flexible for Households Multigenerational Fue Lee’s parents live in the first-floor ADU attached to the family’s house in North Minneapolis. Fue and his adult siblings live in the main home. The Lees’ home and its neighbor to the north were developed by the City of Lakes Community Land Trust as the first two homes to be built with an ADU in Minneapolis. Encouraging ADUs: Best Practices for Cities REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS • Allow different types of ADUs as an accessory to all single-family or small multifamily homes, permitted by right rather than conditionally • Designate ADU experts within departments to facilitate a clear permitting process • Remove or reduce parking minimums • Remove owner-occupancy restrictions • Make design standards more flexible PROMOTE ADUs AND INCREASE ACCESS TO INFORMATION • Create a dedicated webpage and resource materials for ADU development • Host quarterly informational workshops about ADUs • Sponsor, promote, and participate in ADU tours LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL • Offer homeowners waivers, discounts, tiered pricing, and payment plans for fees • Develop an ADU loan program for homeowners • Work with developers to incentivize building ADUs in new construction Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 10 Austin Development Services Department. Accessory Dwelling Units. ww.austintexas.gov/page/adu 11 City of Portland, Oregon. City Council Extends the SDC Waiver for ADUs, with Conditions. June 27, 2018. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/689356 12 Garcia, David. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Dec. 2017. ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf 53 APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER CITIES Allow ADUs to be permitted by right for all single-family and two- family developments. In California, allowing ADUs to be processed ministerially (i.e. administratively/by right) has had a major impact, with a rapid rise in ADU permit applications after the enactment of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in January 2017.13 The City of Oakland had a sevenfold increase, from 33 permit applications in 2015 to 247 in 2017. The City of Los Angeles had a nearly 25-fold increase in applications, from 80 in 2016 to 1,980 in 2017. Remove or reduce parking minimums. In Oregon, a survey conducted by the Department of Environmental Quality found that ADUs had a negligible impact on parking congestion.14 ADU residents had a below-average vehicle ownership rate (less than one per household), and the dispersed nature of ADU development meant any additional on-street parking impact was also dispersed throughout the city. Remove owner-occupancy and household size restrictions. Most peer cities nationally and three Minnesota cities (Crystal, Stillwater, and Northfield15) do not have owner- occupancy requirements. These requirements limit the use of the property over time and may be a disincentive to homeowners considering ADU development or limit their financing options. Make design standards more flexible. After adjusting its regulations in 2015 to allow larger floor areas, Austin, Texas saw a marked increase in ADU development, from 250 issued permits from 1994 to 2015 to more than 600 in the three years since the change.16 Designate ADU experts in departments to facilitate a clear permitting process. To clear its backlog of ADU applications, San Francisco is working with multiple city departments to define a checklist of consistent guidelines to help homeowners successfully navigate city processes.17 Offer waivers, discounts, tiered pricing, and payment plans for fees. WAIVER FOR AFFORDABILITY: The City of Santa Cruz, California waives permit fees on a sliding scale in exchange for a commitment to renting an ADU to a low-income household. Approximately 39 households have used this waiver since 2016.18 TIERED PRICING: Most cities already offer tiered pricing in some form, such as for building permits. Offering tiered pricing for other fees, such as sewer access charges, can help reduce what would otherwise be a larger fixed cost for homeowners wishing to build an ADU. Develop an ADU loan program. The County of Santa Cruz in California,19 the City of Portland, Oregon,20 and the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative (WDRC) in Colorado21 are developing low- or no-interest loan programs for ADU development. Each program has an affordability focus, either creating affordable rental units or building wealth and stability for lower-income homeowners. Santa Cruz County also has a specialized My House, My Home ADU loan program to help low-income senior homeowners build ADUs so that they can afford to age in place.19 Work with developers to incentivize building ADUs in new construction. The City of Lakes Community Land Trust (CLCLT) builds and sells multigenerational-living homes with attached ADUs in Minneapolis. The homes are designed for flexibility, with ADUs at the back of the first floor that can open to the inside of the main home or can be accessed through a separate entrance, allowing the home to meet changing housing needs over multiple generations. REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Encouraging ADUs in Your City Continued on next page 54 FEBRUARY 2019 ©Family Housing Fund 13 Garcia, David. 14 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 15 Northfield is noted here but is not counted as part of the 18 cities that have an ADU policy as it is outside the Twin Cities metro area. 16 City of Austin. Open Data. data.austintexas.gov 17 Sabatini, Joshua. “Just 23 in-Law Units Built after Two Years as SF Seeks to Iron out Approval Process.” The San Francisco Examiner. 25 Feb. 2018. www.sfexaminer.com/just-23-law-units-built-two-years-sf-seeks-iron-approval-process 18 City of Santa Cruz 2016 Accessory Dwelling Units Fee Waiver Information and Application www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=53802 19 Santa Cruz County. Accessory Dwelling Units. Plan Your Financing. www.sccoplanning.com/ADU/Planyourfinancing.aspx 20 Portland Housing Bureau. Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Loan Program. www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/661992 [PDF Slides] 21 Martinez-Stone, Renee. 28 June 2018. 22 Peterson, Kol. 2018. Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development. Accessory Dwelling Strategies, LLC. p. 227-228 23 Eastman, Janet. 29 Aug. 2017. “Get inside 24 Rentable Granny Flats: Portland’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Tour (Photos).” OregonLive.com. www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2017/08/granny_flat_adu_tour_pdx_kol_p.html. 24 Lee, Chris. 25 Apr. 2018. “Minneapolis & Saint Paul Home Tour Features Homes and Neighborhood Pride.” Midwest Home. midwesthome.com/124463-2 APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER CITIES …continued Create a dedicated webpage and host informational workshops on ADU development. City of Santa Cruz, California has become a national model by appointing dedicated staff to the development of its ADU program, creating a guide for homeowners, sharing prototypes of architectural plans, hosting workshops, and creating a webpage with ADU information.22 Sponsor, promote, and participate in ADU tours. The city of Portland boasts an annual ADU tour, run in partnership between advocates and the City. It has been a successful beginning point for many ADU homeowners, who embarked on their developments after attending the tour.23 Locally, a few ADUs already have been popular stops on the Minneapolis & Saint Paul Home Tour.24 PROMOTE ADUs AND INCREASE ACCESS TO INFORMATION Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 310 4th Ave South Suite 9000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 MAIN 612.375.9644 55 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedApple Valley In R-1 zoning districtConditional Use Permit2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main homeYesMust connect to main house40,000 SFCannot exceed 35% 300 SFShall be no larger than 40% of the main home's footprintAttached, Internal 155.382ADU occupancy limited to 3 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer2Bloomington*In R-1 and RS-1 zoning districtsPrimary home must have 4 off-street parking spacesYesMust connect to main house11,000 SF300 SF960 SF or 33% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, Internal § 21.302.03ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer1 permitted and constructedBurnsvilleIn R-1 and R-1A zoning districts1 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main homeYesMust connect to main house. If not on municipal lines, must meet private well and septic standards10,000 SF for attached1 acre for detached300 SF960 SF or 33% of the footprint of the main homeAttached, Detached, Internal 10.7.52ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer; require park dedication and utility fees 0ChaskaIn Planned Unit DevelopmentsYes768 SFDetached, above garage with alley access Ord. #70810CrystalIn R-1 and R-2 zoning districts1 additional for the ADU NoCan be connected to property or utility main 6,000 SF Shall not exceed 50% of the finished floor area of the primary homeAttached, Detached, InternalChapter V, Subsection 515.23, Subdivision 31 permittedEaganIn Estate and R-1 zoning districtsAnnual Registration2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main homeYesMust connect to main houseCannot exceed 20% 300 SF960 SF or 33% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, InternalSection 11.70, subdivision 32ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer1 constructed and 1 legalizedInver Grove HeightsIn the A, E-1, E-2, R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C zoning districts2 off-street for the ADU and 1 off-street for the main homeYesMust share with main house1 acre for detached250 SF1,000 SFAttached, Detached, Internal 10.18.1ADU occupancy limited to 3 people 5 registeredLakevilleIn RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4 zoning districts and Planned Unit Developments3 garage stalls for the ADU and main homeMust share with main houseAttached, Internal11.50.11.F, 11.51.11.F, 11.52.11.F, 11.53.11.FMust be accessed from inside the main home 2 permittedLong LakeIn the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districtsConditional Use Permit2 for the ADUYesx2 the minimum lot size required by the zoning district900 SFCannot be rented to non-family members56 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedMinneapolisAs an accessory to a permitted or conditional single-family or two-family dwelling.0 for the ADU, 1 space each for other units YesConnect to main home or the street300 SFInternal: 800 SF not to exceed the first floor of the main home.Attached: 800 SFDetached: 1,300 SF (incl. parking areas) or 16% of the lot area. Footprint not to exceed 676 SF or 10% of the lot area, not to exceed 1,000 SFAttached, Detached, Internal 537.11~120 permitted and builtMinnetonkaIn R-1 and R-2 zoning districtsConditional Use PermitDetermined on a case by case basisYesMust connect to main homeNo more than 35% of the gross living area of the home, including the ADU or 950 SF, whichever is smaller.Attached, InternalSection 300.16.3.d30PlymouthWithin residential subdivisions in RSF-R, RSF-1, RSF-2, and PUD zoning districts,that have received preliminary plat approval on or after June 1, 2001 and that include 10 ormore single-family lots2 off-street for the ADU YesDetached must connect to utility mainShall not exceed the gross floor area of the main home or 1,000 SF, whichever is lessAttached, Detached 21190.04Can only be constructed at the same time as the primary home, as part of a subdivision of 10 or more homes 0RichfieldIn R and R-1 zoning districts3 off-street spaces are requiredYesAttached and Internal may connect to home300 SF800 SF or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is lessAttached, Detached, Internal514.05 Subd. 8, 518.05 Subd. 8Detached units are only allowed as part of a garage. 2 existingRosevilleIn the LDR-1 zoning district1 additional off-street space for the ADU YesAttached and Internal may connect to home300 SF650 SF or 75% of the 4-season living area of the main homeAttached, Detached, Internal 11.011.12.B.1ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be one bedroom or fewer5, 2 of which were legalized; 1 in processingShoreviewIn RE and R-1 zoning districtsAccessory Apartment Permit3 off-street spaces are requiredYesMust share with main house500 SFNo more than 30% of the building's total floor area nor greater than 800 SFAttached, Internal 207.01ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer St. PaulR1-R4, RT1, RT2, RM1, RM2Annual affadavit of owner-occupancyNo additional spaces if principal home meets minimum parking requirementYesMust connect to principal home 5,000 SF800 SF; if interior to the principal structure, the principal structure must be at least 1,000 SF and the ADU must not exceed 1/3 of the total floor areaAttached, Detached, InternalChapers 61, 63, 65, and 66 157 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU PolicyUpdated: February 2019Local CitiesWhere are ADUs allowed?Special Permit Required? Parking for ADUOwner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size TypeOrdinance Section Notes# Built or legalizedStillwaterIn TR, CTR, and RB zoning districtsIn CTR and RB: Special Use Permit4 off-street for the ADU and main house NoCan be connected to property or utility mainTR and RB: 10,000 SFCTR: 15,000 SFCTR: 500 SF, one story attached or 720 SF above a detached garageRB: 800 SFTR and CTR: Attached, Detached, InternalRB: Detached, above garage Sec. 31-50116 approved, but likely more that were permitted by right in RBWhite Bear LakeWhere single-family homes are permittedConditional Use PermitAnnual Certificate of Occupancy renewalDetermined on a case by case basisYesCan be connected to property or utility main200 SF for the first occupant plus 100 SF for each additional occupant880 SF or 40% of the habitable area of the main homeAttached, DetachedSection 1302.125Maximum of 4 occupants 10 permitted* Updated policy is currently under consideration as of February 2019358