Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/06/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Planning commission meeting June 16, 2021 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther at 952.924.2574 or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Planning commission All meetings of St. Louis Park boards and commissions will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with a local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056. The chief administrator has determined that in-person council or commission/committee meetings are not feasible at this time due to the pandemic. All board members/commissioners will participate in th is meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the regular meeting place of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Members of the public can monitor the meeting by “listen only ” audio by calling +1.312.535.8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city , with board members/commissioners and staff participating from multiple locations. Agenda 1. Call to order – roll call 2. Approval of minutes – June 2, 2021 3. Hearings 3a. Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 21-24-ZA Public hearing phone number: 952.562.288 6 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment Future meeting/event dates: July 7, 2021 – planning commission regular meeting July 21, 2021 – planning commission regular meeting August 4, 2021 – planning commission regular meeting August 18, 2021 – planning commission regular meeting 1 Planning commission meeting June 2, 2021 STUDY SESSION 1. Daycare ordinance introduction 2. Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment 3. 2021 work plan 2 Planning commission June 2, 2021 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Planning commission Members present: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Sam Tift, Tom Weber, Joffrey Wilson Members absent: none Staff present: Jennifer Monson, Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Clint Pires Guests: Dean Newins, Nick Murnane, Tim Callahan , John Kohler, Asher Michels -Allen 1. Call to order – roll call 2. Approval of minutes – May 19, 2021 Commissioner Kraft made a motion, Commissioner Beneke seconded, to accept the May 19, 2021, minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Hearings 3a. Development proposal for 3440 Beltline Blvd. Applicant: Opus Group Case No: 21-19-S, 21-20-PUD Ms. Monson presented the report. Commissioner Beneke asked what the difference is between MX-1 and the PUD. Ms. Monson stated MX-1 would require more commercial on the ground floor along Beltline Boulevard . She added the live -work units do offer the flexibility and opportunity for commercial use along the ground floor. Commissioner Weber asked if the city is viewing this as a marquee development in St. Louis Park . Ms. Monson agreed and stated that this development is in line with the vision for Beltlin e Boulevard . She added staff met with many pros pective developers for this site and shared the city wanted to make sure development meets the city’s goals as outlined in the Beltline Station Area Plan . She stated what is being proposed implements the vision for Beltline Boulevard /Station area, and this development is similar to what was shown in public feedback sessions during the station area planning process. Commissioner Weber asked if the alley, when built, will be the city’s responsibility . Ms. Monson stated that is correct, adding provided it is constructed to city standards and it is in proper condition when it is transferred. The exact location of the alley connection 3 to Park Glen Road will also need to be confirmed, as it would be preferable to connect at a right angle and as far to the west as possible . Commissioner Weber asked if the lot lines will be easier to see when the development is finished . Ms. Monson stated yes, the surface parking for the development is further north than the adjacent buildings. Commissioner Weber agreed with the stop light at Park Glen Road and asked about traffic calming in the area also . Ms. Monson stated the city has a project in 2021 to restripe the street from four to three lanes , add on-street bike lanes, and a construct small median at 35th Street and striped pedestrian crosswalk. Commissioner Weber stated with the Bass Lake Preserve across the street, there should be a crosswalk. Ms. Monson agreed. Commissioner Wilson asked , when thinking about the goals of the city and racial equity, is there opportunity for the developer to demonstrate leadership in this area either as a company or on this project specifically by hiring certain underrepresented groups or by other means. Mr. Murnane stated Opus is discussing and thinking about this internally and working on how they can be better at this in all aspects in the development. Mr. Newins added this is part of the core values of Opus and there is an awareness and appreciation of this issue. Mr. Callahan agreed and added Opus is making a conscientious effort to expand and work with additional sub-contractors and create opportunities in this area. Commissioner Kraft asked if the improvements on Beltline will occur prior to the development construction. Ms. Monson stated yes, the improvements will occur this year, including a roundabout at 36th street, restriping, and completing the trail on the west side of Beltline Boulevard. Chair Eckholm noted the parking will be at 304 spaces, which is 20% less . Ms. Monson stated yes, this 20% reduction allows for more flexibility for residential and commercial tenants within the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Tift asked about the planting requirements. He asked if there is a plan related to the alternative planting. Ms. Monson stated typically developments do not meet the city’s planting requirements and this development would re quire 250 trees and many shrubs. She stated the city typically utilize s public art as an alternative . The process for se lecting art is typically a city and developer led process . This includes neighborhood representatives, following city approvals as laid out in a development agreement. She also noted the public art and the public art process are other opportunities to include diversity and inclusion in the project. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. Lee Cannel, 4501 Park Glen Road, asked if this is a marquee development and why can they not go higher than 10% minimum affordable that is required. The caller noted the 4 Bass Lake Preserve is a fragile environment and he has concerns about how the development might affect the preserve. He asked about TIF and if the developer is asking for that and why. He also asked if there will be a traffic light at Park Glen Road and Beltline Blvd. The caller adding the developer should help pay for the light, especially with so many people living in the area and so much traffic there also. He asked if other developers were interested in affordable housing projects here, such as Common Bond. He stated the developer should meet all the environmental goals of St. Louis Park, adding we need to do better to meet the goals of the city. Chair Eckholm stated this is a private development and the city did not seek out this developer. He added the city is the steward and does not typically seek out other developers; the city looks to see if the development meets the goals of the city. He agreed he would like to see a higher percentage of affordable units as well. Mr. Walther stated TIF is anticipated due to extraordinary development costs and a financial gap in the feasibility of the project. In addition, because of the PUD, this development will be required to meet the cit y’s green building policy and inclusionary housing policy . He added this development meets these requirements. He also added this development is not being asked to provide a signal at Park Glen Road. He stated the signal is not yet warranted there . The city does plan to have one there in the future and the timing will be triggered when there is a demonstrated need and higher volume s are seen on the side streets. He added the city will look to fund and advance that in the future and likely timed with the development of 4600 Beltline Blvd . Mr. Walther added the city is looking to protect Bass Lake and will provide stormwater treatment which will be far better than what is currently there . He stated there will be vast improvements to the water quality and reduction in the rate stormwater is released from this site into Bass Lake with this development. Ms. Monson agreed with Commissioner Weber’s comments that this is a private development and that affordable housing is also important in the city. She added the housing policy for the city does encompass various tiers for affordability at the light rail stations. Commissioner Weber added the requirements of the city on housing affordability are determined by the city council. The planning commission works on projects that include affordability , including an application for another site in the city later in the agenda. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kraft stated this is a thorough project with much research and thought. She appreciates the live -work spaces and retail/commercial at either end and she sees this changing more as light rail moves in. She stated she is supportive and thinks it is very well done. Commissioner Beneke thanked staff and the developer on this and appreciated how the city is considering more affordability also. He stated he will support this as well. 5 Chair Eckholm stated this development represents a great step for the area and this will set the standard for the Beltline Blvd area and future developments in the area. He stated he also will support this project. Commissioner Weber made a motion and Commissioner Dagane seconded to recommend approval of the development proposal for 3440 Beltline Boulevard as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3b . Parkway Residences planned unit development major amendment Applicant: Sela Investments, Ltd. Case No: 21-22-PUD Ms. Monson presented the report. Commissioner Beneke stated the biggest change here is the reduced number of shrubs. Ms. Monson stated the shrubs are reduced but they are adding trees and a sidewalk to increase the connections. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. There were no callers. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kraft made a motion and Commissioner Beneke seconded to approve the major amendment to the PUD at Parkway Residences as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3c. Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to the animal handling land category Applicant: John Kohler, representing Paster Properties Case No: 21-23-ZA Mr. Morrison presented the report. Commissioner Kraft asked if any complaints have come forward in the past regarding these kinds of businesses. Mr. Morrison stated there have been no complaints of odor or nuisance in the past. Commissioner Wilson noted if this were approved this would set precedent in various developments. He noted it would introduce the use in vertical mixed-use buildings where they haven’t been allowed before, so there may be a potential for nuisance complaints where none were previously permitted. Mr. Morrison stated that is correct 6 and noted conditions were added related to size to further reduce the potential impacts on neighbors. Commissioner Beneke asked how this works with a PUD and what is allowed. Mr. Morrison stated several PUDs are already approved and this ordinance would add this use to some of the existing PUDs and going forward in future PUDs staff would consider in cluding this use along with other commercial/residential uses when drafting the PUD. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. Mr. Kohler stated there is a tenant that would like to be in the Texa-Tonka shopping center building and they would be very quiet within the development. There were no callers. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Chair Eckholm stated there seems to be no harm with this ordinance and he appreciated staff working with the applicant to meet their needs but also write this to not allow for something that the city would not want. He stated he would support this. Commissioner Weber stated he also would support the ordinance. Commissioner Weber made a motion and Commissioner Wilson seconded, to approve the zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to the animal handling land category as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Other Business a. Rise on 7 – preliminary and final planned unit development Ms. Kramer presented the report. Commissioner Wilson noted concerns from residents and businesses and asked about shadowing which has been addressed within this new plan. He asked about traffic concerns . Ms. Kramer stated staff conducted a preliminary review of traffic. She added a full s tudy was not conducted as the project will not generate a level of traffic that would trigger the need for a traffic study. She noted traffic concerns were about potential delays of eastbound traffic on the frontage road waiting to turn left onto Texas Ave . She noted that staff’s assessment is that this does not warrant any mitigation . Commissioner Wilson asked about affordability in this project. Ms. Kramer stated all of the units will be affordable to a variety of incomes ranging from 30% to 70% AMI . She added this project exceeds the requirements of the city’s inclusionary housing policy. 7 Commissioner Beneke asked if there is a way to shorten the path from the development to the light rail station . Ms. Kramer stated the main pedestrian paths will be along the frontage road or taking Texas Avenue to Lake Street to Blake Road. Commissioner Weber acknowledged that part of Division Street is in Hopkins, however, he stated he is so grateful to the developer and city staff for adding sidewalks for connectivity . He added the f rontage road will get pedestrians to Blake Road and to the light rail. He further encouraged the city and developer to find a way to fund additional sidewalks there to close the remaining gaps. Mr. Walther stated the city’s Connect the Park initiative does work to address this and it has been well-funded. He added more projects including bridges will be coming this year in the city . He noted in the past there have been funds for random sidewalk repairs and adding projects like this. Those funds are spoken for in the capital improvements plan and the council is working to balance funding on the Connect the Park program with other priorities . Mr. Walther stated because of this, there is no funding available now. Staff will work to find a funding source, but it cannot be guaranteed. Commissioner Weber appreciated the changes made at the development and stated he will support it adding the traffic issues will be limited as there is no through traffic on these streets. Commissioner Wilson stated he appreciates this project and he thanked staff for the presentation. Commissioner Tift stated he is supportive of the affordable nature of this project and asked if the daycare will be affordable as well. Ms. Kramer stated this is a priority of Common Bond, the day care provider, the church that is selling the property, and it is a crucial component of the project. Mr. Michels -Allen added the general understanding with the daycare is that half the spots will be affordable rate s. Chair Eckholm stated he supports the project as well, adding he likes the changes made to the building. He again asked staff to please find funding for the sidewalks to help pedestrians connect in the area, in a safe manner. Commissioner Beneke made a motion and Commissioner Kraft seconded, to recommend approval of the preliminary and final PUD subject to conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Communications a. Appointment/introductions of new commissioners 8 Commissioner Wilson noted he is from Minneapolis and has lived in St. Louis Park for over 11 years, is married with two children . He stated he is excited to be on the planning commission and works for Mortenson in human resources working in diversity and inclusion . Commissioner Tift stated he is from St. Louis Park, left and moved back. He is in the process of buying a home and works at Horizontal Digital. His background is in marketing and management and is looking forward to working with everyone. Commissioner Weber stated he and Commissioner Dagane started a year ago. He added the majority of the commission has never met in person, due to only attending online meetings. Mr. Walther noted the next meeting will be in two weeks, with discussions on a home occupations ordinance for consideration and a public hearing. That meeting will be followed by a study session introducing a new development proposal by Sherman Associates at the future Beltline Boulevard LRT station and commissioners will debrief about the meeting with city council on the 2021 work plan . Mr. Walther also stated that because of the changing guidance of the Center for Disease Control and Minnesota Department of Health, city council has asked all commissions to return to in-person meetings in July. He stated the first meeting in July will be cancelled and the second meeting in July will be the first in person meeting in over a year. He added he will send an email with guidance to the commission. 6. Adjournment – 8:11 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Matt Eckholm, chair member 9 10 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: June 16, 2021 Agenda item: 3a 3a Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Case Number: 21-24-ZA Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Review Deadline: Not applicable Recommended motions: Chair to close the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to home occupations as recommended by staff. Summary of request: The city proposes to amend the regulations pertaining to home occupations in the following manner: • Combin e all regulations into one section of code so that they are uniformly applied in all residential districts , MX districts, and PUD districts previously approved with home occupations. • Allow barbers/hairdressers. • Allow one outside employee that does not reside on the property. • Allow the size of a home occupation to be equal to 25% of the floor area of a dwelling (currently they are limited to 10% or one room, which is likely less , but also ambiguous). • Allow resid ents of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU ) to conduct home occupations in the ADU. Background: The city council added a review of home occupations as a priority discussion topic in 2020. Also, the planning commission included it in its 2021 work plan. The planning commission reviewed the draft ordinance in November 4 and December 2, 2020. On December 4, 2020 the planning commission requested city council review the draft. On February 8, 2021, the city council agreed with the planning commission recommendations except for allowing accessory buildings (i.e. garages) to be used in conjunction with a home occupation. Some council members expressed concerns with the expansion of businesses into accessory buildings noting that this is an intensification of the home occupation ordinance and the city is already experiencing nuisance complaints from residents resulting from businesses operating illegally in accessory buildings. Limited interest was also e xpressed in requiring home occupations to be registered with the city, perhaps through the existing registration of land use (RLU) process that is required for businesses locating in non-residential districts. The city currently requires the RLU for home occupations that have customers or students come to the site. On March 17, 2021 the planning commission reviewed the draft ordinance and city council comments. Commissioners agreed to continue the current practice of prohibiting home occupations in access ory structures, except residents of an ADU should be allowed to operate a home occupation in the ADU. 11 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Draft ordinance: In addition to the amendments discussed below, staff also proposes moving the home occupation regulations from each of the residential districts, MX districts and PUD districts to a new subsection in the general residential district regulations section of the zoning ordinance. Consolidating all the rules to one section would reduce redundancy in the code and would be easier administratively to maintain consistency of the regulations. The drafted amendment includes: • Allowing barbers/hairdressers as a home occupation. Currently, they are prohibited as home occupations. • Allow one outside employee to work at the property where the home occupation is based. The employee may work at a home occupation conducted by the occupant of either the principal or accessory dwelling. The draft does not allow an employee at both home occupations for those instances when home occupations are conducted by the occupants of both the principal dwelling and accessory dwelling. • Allow a home occupation to occupy more than 10% of the home. Section 36-115(e) defines an accessory use as a secondary use that occupies less than 25% of the building area. To be consistent with this provision, staff proposes to increase the maximum allowed floor area for home occupations from 10% to 25%. The size limit for a home occupation conducted by the occupant of the principal dwelling will be based on the size of the principal dwelling. Home occupations based out of an accessory dwelling unit will be based on the size of the accessory dwelling unit. • Allow residents of accessory dwelling units to conduct home occupations. The draft allows the occupants of both the principal dwelling and the ADU to each conduct their own home occupations. As drafted, home occupations conducted by the occupants of the ADU are limited to 25% of the ADU. Furthermore, the draft ordinance limits the number of outside employees that do not reside on the property to no more than one outside employee per lot. The home occupation conducted in the ADU cannot have an employee if there is already a home occupation with an outside employee conducted in the principal dwelling and vice versa. • Allow equipment that is not typically present in a residential household, provided it has no negative impacts on adjacent residential properties, is small enough in scale so as to not infringe on the residential character of the home, and the equipment does not result in undue impacts to public infrastructure. The draft ordinance proposes to eliminate the provision limiting equipment to that which is normally found in a home. Instead, the ordinance would rely on the other provisions that prohibit nuisance impacts such as noise, smells, vibrations, etc. The equipment is permitted if its use is not perceptible to adjacent properties. Home occupations conducted in apartments, condominiums, townhomes or other dwelling units sharing a common wall will have a more difficulty meeting this requirement, and therefore, in practice will likely be subject to greater limitations as to the equipment allowed. 12 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations • Require registration of home occupations with an employee that does not reside on the property. Currently home occupations are required to register if they have customers or students visiting the property. The proposed amendment would include home occupations with an employee that does not reside on the property to also complete the registration of land use application. Next Steps: If the planning commission recommends approval, then the ordinance will be considered by the council on August 2, 2021. Attachments: Proposed ordinance ; March 17 planning commission minutes. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 13 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Ordinance No. ___-21 Ordinance regarding home occupations The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on June 16, 2021 on the ordinance, and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (case no. 21-24-ZA), and Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City Code: Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-83 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: Sec. 36-83 Home Occupations. (a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of this section is to provide conditions under which a home occupation may be conducted that ensures a minimum negative impact to neighborhoods and neighboring land uses. (b) Authorized home occupations. A dwelling in any use district that permits dwelling, may be used for a home occupation as an accessory use if it complies with the following conditions: a. A registration of land use is required for any home occupation established after July 12, 2019, that has customers, students, or an employee coming to the site. b. The home occupation and structure housing the home occupation meets all applicable fire and building codes, as well as any other city, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property and does not change the character of the property. d. The floor area of the home occupation cannot exceed 25% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling unit. If a home occupation is conducted by the occupant of an accessory dwelling unit, then it is limited to 25% of the floor area of the accessory dwelling unit. e. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right-of-way. f. All material or equipment is stored within an enclosed structure. g. The home occupation does not produce nuisance noise, odors, smoke, heat, glare, vibration, or electrical interference beyond the residential lot occupied by the home occupation. h. One person who does not legally reside at the property may be employed at a home occupation. If there is a home occupation being conducted in both the primary dwelling and accessory dwelling unit, then only one of the two may have an employee that does not legally reside on the property. i. Persons do not come to the location of the home occupation to be dispatched to other locations, or to pick-up or drop-off equipment, materials, or supplies. 14 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations j. Sale of pro ducts related to the home occupation is allowed with the following conditions: i. Products are shipped to and from the premises; or ii. Product sales occur off -site at a permissible location; or iii. Customers visit the premises by appointment only; or iv. Products are sold on the premises at garage sales as regulated by this chapter. k. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign up to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. l. The home occupation does not include any of the following use s: auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, small engine repair, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, restaurant, firearm sales, currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business or high-impact sexually oriented business. Section 2. R-1 single -family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 36-163(e )(5) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following struck -out text (renumber accordingly): (5) Home occupations complying with all of the following conditions: a. The city has approved a Registration of Land Use for any home occupation established after July 12, 2019, that has customers or students coming to the site. b. The home occupation and st ructure housing the home occupation meets all applicable fire and building codes, as well as any other city, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property and does not change the character of the property. d. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. e. No portion of the home occupation is conducted within any attached or detached accessory building. f. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. g. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the occupation. h. All material or equipment is stored within an enclosed structure. i. The home occupation does not produce nuisance noise, odors, smoke, heat, glare, vibration, or electrical interference beyond the residential lot occupied by the home occupation. j. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home. k. Persons do not come to the location of the home occupation to be dispatched to other locations. l. Sale of products related to the home occupation is allowed with the following conditions: i.. Products are shipped to and from the premises; or ii. Product sales occur off-site at a permissible location; or iii. Customers visit the premises by appointment only; or 15 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations iv. Products are sold on the premises at garage sales as regulated by this chapter. m. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign up to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. n. The home occupation does not include any of the following uses: auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, small engine repair, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and barbershop, firearm sales, currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business or high-impact sexually oriented business. Section 3. R-2 single -family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 36-164(e)(5) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following st ruck -out text (renumber accordingly): (5) Home occupations complying with all of the following conditions: a. The city has approved a Registration of Land Use for any home occupation established after July 12, 2019, that has customers or students coming to the site. b. The home occupation and structure housing the home occupation meets all applicable fire and building codes, as well as any other city, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property and does not change the character of the property. d. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. e. No portion of the home occupation is conducted with any attached or detached accessory building. f. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. g. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. h. All material or equipment is stored within an enclosed structure. i. The home occupation does not produce nuisance noise, odors, smoke, heat, glare, vibration, or electrical interference beyond the residential lot occupied by the home occupation. j. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home. k. Persons do not come to the location of the home occupation to be dispatched to other locations. l. Sale of products related to the home occupation is allowed with the following conditions: i. Products are shipped to and from the premises; or ii. Product sales occur off-site at a permissible location; or iii. Customers visit the premises by appointment only; or iv. Products are sold on the premises at garage sales as regulated by this chapter. m. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign up to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. 16 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations n. The home occupation does not include any of the following uses: auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, small engine repair, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and barbershop, firearm sales, currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business or high impact sexually oriented business. Section 4. R-3 two -family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 36-165(e)(5) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following struck -out text (renumber accordingly): (5) Home occupations complying with all of the following conditions: a. The city has approved a Registration of Land Use for any home occupation established after July 12, 2019, that has customers or students coming to the site. b. The home occupation and structure housing the home occupation meets all applicable fire and building codes, as well as any other city, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property and does not change the character of the property. d. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. e. No portion of the home occupation is conducted within any attached or detached accessory building. f. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. g. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. h. All material or equipment is stored within an enclosed structure. i. The home occupation does not produce nuisance noise, odors, smoke, heat, glare, vibration, or electrical interference beyond the residential lot occupied by the home occupation. j. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home. k. Persons do not come to the location of the home occupation to be dispatched to other locations. l. Sale of products related to the home occupation is allowed with the following conditions: i. Products are shipped to and from the premises; or ii. Product sales occur off-site at a permissible location; or iii. Customers visit the premises by appointment only; or iv. Products are sold on the premises at garage sales as regulated by this chapter. m. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign up to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. n. The home occupation does not include any of the following uses: auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, small engine repair, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and barbershop, firearm sales, 17 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business or high-impact sexually oriented business. Section 5. R-4 multiple -family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 36-166(e)(7) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following struck -out text (renumber accordingly): (7) Home occupations complying with all of the following conditions: a. The city has approved a Registration of Land Use for any home occupation established after July 12, 2019, that has customers or students coming to the site. b. The home occupation and structure housing the home occupation meets all applicable fire and building codes, as well as any other city, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property and does not change the character of the property. d. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. e. No portion of the home occupation is conducted within any attached or detached accessory building. f. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. g. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. h. All material or equipment is stored within an enclosed structure. i. The home occupation does not produce nuisance noise, odors, smoke, heat, glare, vibration, or electrical interference beyond the residential lot occupied by the home occupation. j. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home. k. Persons do not come to the location of the home occupation to be dispatched to other locations. l. Sale of products related to the home occupation is allowed with the following conditions: i. Products are shipped to and from the premises; or ii. Product sales occur off-site at a permissible location; or iii. Customers visit the premises by appointment only; or iv. Products are sold on the premises at garage sales as regulated by this chapter. m. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign up to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. n. The home occupation does not include any of the following uses: auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, small engine repair, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and barbershop, firearm sales, currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business or high-impact sexually oriented business. 18 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Section 6. RC high -density multiple -family res idence district. Chapter 36, Section 36- 167(d)(6) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following struck -out text (renumber accordingly): (6) Home occupations complying with all of the following conditions: a. The city has approve a Registration of Land Use for any home occupation established after July 12, 2019, that has customers or students coming to the site. b. The home occupation and structure housing the home occupation meets all applicable fire and building codes, as well as any other city, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The home occupation is clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property and does not change the character of the property. d. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. e. No portion of the home occupation is conducted within any attached or detached accessory building. f. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. g. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. h. All material or equipment is stored within an enclosed structure. i. The home occupation does not produce nuisance noise, odors, smoke, heat, glare, vibration, or electrical interference beyond the residential lot occupied by the home occupation. j. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home. k. Persons do not come to the location of the home occupation to be dispatched to other locations. l. Sale of products related to the home occupation is allowed with the following conditions: i. Products are shipped to and from the premises; or ii. Product sales occur off-site at a permissible location; or iii. Customers visit the premises by appointment only; or iv. Products are sold on the premises at garage sales as regulated by this chapter. m. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign up to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. n. The home occupation does not include any of the following uses: auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service and repair, small engine repair, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and barbershop, firearm sales, currency exchange, payday loan agency, sexually-oriented business or high-impact sexually oriented business. 19 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Section 7. MX 1 vertical mixed use district. Chapter 36, Section 36-264(f) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underline d text and delete the following struck -out text: (9) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district. Section 8. MX-2 neighborhood mixed use district. Chapter 36, Section 36-265(f) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck -out text: (3) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution, or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No light or vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line, or adjacent dwelling unit. e. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. f. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. g. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. h. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code. If there are any customers or students coming to the site, then the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy for the business. Section 9. Planned unit development district. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD 1(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck -out text: (2) Home occupations as regulated by this chaptercomplying with all of the conditions in the R- C district . Section 10. Planned unit development district. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD 2(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck -out text: (3) Home occupations as regulated by this chaptercomplying with all of the conditions in the R- C district . 20 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Section 11. Planned unit development district. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD 5(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: (8) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. complying with all of the following conditions: a. All materials or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. b. Operation of the home occupations is not apparent from the public right -of-way. c. The activity does not involved warehousing, distribution, or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family da y care facility may have one outside employee. e. No light or vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. f. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of home occupation. g. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code. Section 12. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD 7 (c): (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure of land in the PUD 2 district may be used for one or more of the following uses if it complies with the conditions specified for the use in this subsection: (1) Commercial uses. Commercial uses limited to the following: bank, food service, grocery store, large item retail, liquor store, medical or dental office, office, private entertainment (indoor), retail, service, showroom, limited animal handling and studio. These commercial uses shall meet the following conditions: a. Commercial uses are limited to the first floor. b. Hours of operation, including loading/unloading of deliveries, for commercial uses shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. c. In-vehicle sales or service is prohibited. d. Restaurants are prohibited. e. Outdoor storage is prohibited. Section 13. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-7 (c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: (2) Home occupations as regulated by this cha pter.complying with all of the conditions for home occupations located in the R -C district. 21 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations Section 14. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-8 (c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: (1) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. complying with all of the conditions in the R -C district. Section 15. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-9 (c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined tex t and delete the following struck-out text: (2) Accessory Uses: *** b. Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. complying with all of the conditions in the R -C district. i. Except family day care is prohibited. Section 16. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-11 (d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: (1) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. are permitted on Lot 1 with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. e. No light or vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. f. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. g. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. Section 17. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-14 (c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: (1) Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. 22 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. e. No light or vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. f. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. g. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whicheve r is greater. i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. Section 18. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-15 (b) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: AB. Accessory uses: Accessory uses are as follows: 1. Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. are permitted with the condition that they comply with the following conditions: i. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. ii. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of- way. iii. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. iv. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. v. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the propert y line. vi. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. vii. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. viii. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. 23 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations ix. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. x. The structure hous ing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. Section 19. Chapter 36, Section 36-268-PUD-16 (b) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: 2. Accessory uses. Accessory uses are as follows: a. Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: i. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. ii. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of- way. iii. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. iv. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. v. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. vi. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. vii. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. viii. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. ix. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. Section 20. Chapter 36, Se ction 36-268-PUD-17 (c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following struck-out text: 11. Home occupations as regulated by this chapter. are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right -of-way. c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. e. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the proper ty line. f. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. 24 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations g. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. Section 21. This ordinance shall take effect ____, 2021. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council _____, 2021 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney First Reading , 2021 Second Reading , 2021 Date of Publication , 2021 Date Ordinance takes effect , 2021 25 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 17, 2021 - 6:00 p.m. WEBEX MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber MEMBERS ABSENT: Courtney Erwin STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:00 p.m. 2. Home occupations Mr. Morrison presented the report. Chair Eckholm stated there are parking concerns possibly, but he noted noise issues are more concerning. He added if the accessory building is a problem for city council, he would be fine removing that piece. Mr. Morrison stated the complaints that went to council were not about parking, they were about the impacts resulting from home occupations being conducted in accessory buildings. Commissioner Weber asked if there is enforcement action if an occupation is moved to the garage. Mr. Morrison stated ye s there is. He noted that enforcement takes time and is problematic in that the city will not contact a business unless staff sees or catches them in the act of using the garage for their business. Chair Eckholm asked what sort of businesses the nuisance cases are. Mr. Morrison stated some are auto repair, storage of items in the garage, or employees coming over to pick up items out of a garage, which creates traffic. He added sometimes it can be an odor, such as paint or stain. Commissioner Weber appreciated Mr. Morrison’s comments, but added if the extension is to an ADU and a garage is not included, he is not sure what the difference is between home or garage occupation. Mr. Morrison stated the home occupation is less likely to create nuisance impacts for neighbors if it is being conducted in the dwelling as opposed to a garage or shed. People may be more likely to conduct an activity that results in 26 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to home occupations odors, sound, or other nuisances when conducted in an accessory building than within their own dwelling space. Chair Eckholm asked if there might be more acceptance if the city allowed painting in a shed vs. in a garage, and if removing garages solves 90% of the problem. Mr. Morrison stated the city does not differentiate between a garage or a shed in the code they are both accessory buildings. Commissioner Kraft asked if garage attached to homes are considered an accessory use. Mr. Morrison stated yes. She stated the spirit of the ordinance seems to be that the home occupation is within the home and should not be noticeable. She stated she does not think we need to pursue allowing home occupations in accessory buildings. Commissioner Beneke asked if the 25% limit is applicable to the ADU. Mr. Morrison stated it should, but also noted that if the occupant of the ADU is using more than 25%, it would be difficult for city staff to know. Mr. Walther stated when the ADU was created, it was defined as only when they are designed to be separate units. He stated it there is a living space and flow between the two areas, that is not technically an ADU. Commissioner Beneke asked if all home occupation persons would need to get a permit, so they know what the rules are. Mr. Morrison stated permits are required when customers and students come to the site, we can amend the code to also require the permit when an employee comes to the site. Otherwise, staff gets a lot of calls about the rules for home occupations. We can use the website to make the information readily available. Otherwise, when the city receives a complaint, we use the first encounter to share the rules. We begin enforcement if they continue to violate the rules. He stated this will be brought forward to the commission as a public hearing in April as well. 27 28 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: June 16, 2021 Study session item: 1 1 Daycare ordinance introduction Recommended motions: No action is required at this time. The purpose of this report is to introduce staff’s intent to review the city daycare regulations. Summary of request: Several commercial group daycare providers are searching for locations in St. Louis Park. There are existing businesses that must relocate and new businesses seeking to serve this area that are unable to find suitable locations. The challenges include low vacancy rates as well as regulatory challenges in the city zoning code. The conditions for allowing daycares may be too strict in some respects, and perhaps too lenient in others respects because they permitted daycares in decidedly industrial areas. Staff began reviewing city zoning regulations pertaining to daycares for the purpose of: 1. Creating uniform regulations in similar zoning districts. Staff has noted some significant discrepancies with the regulations between similar zoning districts. For example, a 100-foot setback from principal arterials (highways such as 7, 100, 394 and 169) is required for commercial daycares, but not for daycares operating as an accessory use in a place of worship. 2. The city requires 40 square feet of outdoor play area per student that the daycare is designed to accommodate at full capacity. This requirement is approximately twice what Hennepin County licensing requires and is difficult for potential daycare operators to meet. 3. Staff is researching urban daycare designs to identify alternative regulations that may be appropriate in areas of St. Louis P ark. Staff would like preliminary input from commissioners on the daycare regulations and the considerations listed above. Next Steps. Staff will continue to research and review the regulations and bring a draft ordinance to the planning commission in August or September for further consideration. Attachments: None. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 29 30 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: June 16, 2021 Study session item: 2 2 Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Location: Southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard Recommended motions: Discuss and provide feedback on the proposed development for the Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Summary of request: On Feb. 5, 2018, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) entered into an agreement with Sherman Development Associates LLC to develop a mixed -use, transit-oriented development immediately north of the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Beltline Boulevard Station Site. Sherman proposes to construct the following building components on the 6.6-acre site at the southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard: • Seven-story mixed-use building with six levels of market rate housing (159 units) and approximately 20,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, potentially anchored by a grocer. • Five -story market rate apartment building with 160 units. • Four-story all affordable apartment building with 82 units, 77 units will be available at 60% AMI and five units will be available at 30% AMI. 22 units will be three -bedrooms. • 362-stall parking ramp, which is proposed to include 268 park and ride stalls, 79 commercial parking stalls and approximately 1,8000 square feet of retail/commercial space. • Sustainable features including on and off-site solar, green space, plazas, and public art will be incorporated throughout the development. The development will adhere to the city’s green building policy. The site meets the state’s requirements for a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) because there are more than 375 attached residential dwelling units. An EAW is being prepared for the Beltline Boulevard Station redevelopment site. When the draft is complete, staff will ask city council to authorize distribution of the EAW. Approximately 6 weeks later city council will be asked to approve a resolution of findings and a declaration as to whether additional review (an environmental impact statement) is needed. Site information: The proposed redevelopment site is located in the southeast quadrant of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard. The site is immediately north of the future Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) Beltline Boulevard Station. The site is in the Triangle neighborhood, is approximately 7 acres in size , and is comprised of four tracts of land: • 4601 Highway 7 (owned by the EDA) • 3130 Monterey Ave S (owned by the EDA), • road right of way (owned by the city) • 4725 Highway 7 (owned by Beltline Development LLC an affiliate of Sherman Associates). 31 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Site area (acres): ~7.0 acres Current use: Vacant land Surrounding land uses: North: CSAH25 East: General Office Products South: SWLRT Beltline Station West: Beltline Boulevard Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning TOD - transit oriented development I-G general industrial ROW - right of way Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning TOD - transit oriented development PUD planned unit development ROW - right of way Background: In 2015 the city received a $6.4 million-dollar federal grant to construct a multi- level parking ramp in lieu of a large surface parking lot to serve the park and ride needs of the SWLRT at the Beltline Station. In summer 2017, the EDA entered into a preliminary development agreement with Sherman Associates to construct a development that meets the city’s objectives for the site: • Construct a signature, transit-oriented development (TOD), • Tran sform the SWLRT Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Site into an active, TOD-focused place with: 32 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment − Mixed use development (including multi-family residential, office and small commercial components), − Housing density to support transit ridership, − Mixed income housing (both market rate and affordable), − High -quality s hared site amenities, • Optimize the site’s development and employment potential, • Integrate development with the adjacent SWLRT Beltline Boulevard Station and connect with the surrounding areas, • Build a parking structure for required park-and-ride purposes, • Demonstrate high standards for environmental sustainability. The EDA determined Sherman Associates’ proposal most closely aligned with the city’s vision, development objectives and preferred programming for the site . Staff and Sherman Associates have been working on details and financing of the project for the past several years, and the development team is now in the process on moving forward with their development proposal. Present considerations: Beltline Boulevard Station will be developed in two phases. Phase I includes: • Building 1 is a seven-story mixed -use building with 6 levels of market rate housing (159 units) and approximately 20,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, potentially anchored by a grocer. It would be constructed at the southeast corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard • A 362-stall parking ramp, includ ing 268 park and ride stalls for the SWLRT, 79 stalls for commercial park ing stalls and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail/commercial space. • Building 2 is a five -story market rate apartment building with 160 units to be constructed east of Building I and fronting CSAH 25. Phase II include s: • Building 3 is a four-story, 82-unit apartment building to be constructed in the southeast corner of the redevelopment site. All the units in this building would be affordable with 77 units available to households at 60% AMI and five units would be available to households at 30% AMI . This building would also feature 67 (82%) two bedrooms units or larger. 22 units (27%) are three bedrooms. The average unit floor area is 1,029 square feet. In total the proposed redevelopment will have 401 apartment units of which 319 (80%) will be market rate and 82 (20%) would be affordable for 25 years. The housing units will include a combination of studios, alcoves, and one, two and three bedrooms. 33 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 2) Title: Sherman Associates’ proposed Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Proposed site plan Planning commission study session: During the June 16, 2021 study session, staff will present the proposed plan and architectural concepts for the development to the commission. Staff requests the commission discuss and provide feedback on the proposal. A detailed report on the proposal went to city council for their June 14, 2021 study session describing the proposed site plan and architectural design more in detail. That report can be viewed on the city council agenda webpage. Next steps: Staff will request city council authorize distribution of the EAW on June 21, 2021. An announcement will be published in the EQB Monitor on June 28, 2021. This will commence a formal 30-day comment period. Staff will collect and coordinate the response to all comments that are received. Soon after, the city council will be asked to approve a resolution with findings and declaration of whether further environmental review is necessary. In the coming months, the planning commission will be asked to consider a comprehensive plan amendment, a preliminary and final plat, and a preliminary and final planned unit development. Recommendations: Discuss and provide feedback on the proposed development for the Beltline Boulevard Station Redevelopment Supporting documents: Discussion, site plan, concept images, June 14 city council agenda Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, senior planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 34 LOADING 1,643 SF RAMP DN. 6.5% PUBLIC PARKING LVL 1 (79 STALLS) RAMP UP 6.5% 18 20 18 9 14 10 RAMP DN. RAMP DN. 13 LEASING AMENITY AMENITY AMENITY LOBBY/ LEASING LOBBY/ LEASING POCKET PARK DOG RUN PLAYGROUND 11 15 15 13 AMENITYLOBBY PEDESTRIAN PATH CANOPY STORM RETENTION 24 6 SCREENING WATER RETENTION GARDEN MONTEREY AVE.BELTLINE BLVD.BUILDING 3 5-STORY MARKET RATE 160 UNITS GROCERY 19,508 SF 7-STORY MIXED USE 159 UNITS BUILDING 2 4-STORY AFFORDABLE 84 UNITS H IG H W A Y 2 5 B E L T L IN E S T A T IO N BUILDING 1 PARKING RAMP 5' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0"3' - 0"5' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"RETAIL 1,800 SF ENTRY ENTRY OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR ENTRIES PUBLIC SEATING10' - 0"1' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"8' - 0"6' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 5' - 0" C C C C C LOADING C E D A R L A K E T R A IL O V E R P A S S B U S S T O P N SITE PLAN 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.06/01/2021 35 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 AERIAL LOOKING SOUTHEAST AERIAL LOOKING SOUTHWEST PRELIMINARY BUILDING MASSING 36 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 PRELIMINARY BUILDING MASSING AERIAL LOOKING NORTHEAST AERIAL LOOKING NORTHWEST 37 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 LILAC WAY – preference to restore native trees or shrubbery, rows of lilacs like D.C. cherry blossoms, three reserved park/picnic areas EXPERIMENTAL GRAIN ELEVATOR – innovation in agriculture and first of its kind. RAILROAD – importance to city development and vitality PARKS – destinations along major mobility corridors, support needs of the community Beltline Visioning LOCAL HISTORY 38 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 Beltline Visioning GREEN/SUSTAINABILITY Saint Louis Park - 2017 Climate Action Plan •Reduce energy consumption in large commercial buildings by 30% •Reduce energy consumption in small-mid size commercial buildings •Design and build all new construction to be net- zero energy •Reduction of energy consumption in residential buildings by 30% •Achieve 100% renewable energy •Reduce vehicle emissions by 25% •Reduce solid waste by 50% Environmental Stewardship •Residents value park systems and natural areas in neighborhoods The site is a hub for transportation; buses, rail, and bikes will have great access. Use of green stormwater management and renewable energy opportunities will set a precedent for vital green initiative in the built environment. 39 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 Exterior Visioning PRESENCE/PROMINENCE 40 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 Exterior Visioning CAMPOS/MULTI-USE 41 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 Exterior Visioning SHELL/CARAPACE GJ1 42 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 Exterior Visioning SEAM/STITCH 43 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 06/01/21 Exterior Visioning EXPRESSIVE/IDENTIFIER 44 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: June 16, 2021 Agenda item: 3 3 2021 work plan Recommended action: Review the work plan and discuss city council comments. Summary: On April 26, 2021, planning commission presented their 2020 annual report and 2021 work plan to city council. Staff would like to allow planning commissioners time to discuss the feedback city council provided to the commission . The meeting minutes are attached. In addition to the topic of the 2021 work plan, the city council also discussed “single -family building scale,” which in included in the planning commission work plan. Several commissioners listened to the council discussion on that topic. The minutes from that discussion are also attached for review . The city council did not want to proceed with the recommendations from staff and the commission. It was the consensus of the council to discontinue discussion of this item, and Councilmember Rog will resubmit this topic and rework it into a broader context for city council to consider adding to the future study session discussion list. Next steps: Staff will make any necessary updates to the 2021 work plan based on discussion. Supporting documents: 2021 work plan , city council meeting minutes of April 26, 2021 Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 45 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan 2021 Work Plan Time Frame Initiative Strategic Priorities Purpose (see last page for definitions) Ongoing Identify strategies to broaden participation and reduce barriers to public participation. Review notification methods, online opportunities to submit input and consider when providing translation services, transportation or child care may be warranted. ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☒ Ongoing Responsibility ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Ongoing Review development applications ; hold study sessions and hearings in order to make informed recommendations to city council. ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☒ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1-Q2 Single family building scale ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☒ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q1 Home occupation zoning requirements and work toward formal adoption ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☒ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q4 Transit Oriented Development District ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☒ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2-Q3 Allow for two -family dwelling units (twin homes and duplexes) on ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☒ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) 46 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan appropriately sized lots in low density residential areas. ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q2 Revisions to parking requirements in zoning code ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☒ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q3-Q4 Identify needed updates to station area plans and next implementation steps ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q3-Q4 Food security and a ccess study ☐New Initiative ☒Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☒ Council Initiated Project ☒ Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q3-Q4 Hold planning commission meetings at off-site locations to foster community relationships (high school, HACER, etc.). ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☒ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐N/A ☒ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☐ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q3-Q4 Racial equity training. Possibly joint training with other boards and commissions like ESC and police advisory commission. ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☐ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) Q4 Transitional industrial zoning district and work toward formal adoption ☒New Initiative ☐Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☒ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐N/A ☒ Commission Initiated Project ☐ Council Initiated Project ☐ Report Findings (council requested) ☒ Formal Recommendation (council requested) 47 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan Parking Lot Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative. City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities 1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement OR Other Initiative Comments: Water conservation and water recycling Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground water resources. Housing analysis Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on present inventory and unmet demand, and for the ratio of owne d vs. rental housing units. 48 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan Purpose: definitions Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: • Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. • If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting. • The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion . •Project initiated by the board or commission Commission Initiated Project •Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Council Initiated Project •Initiated by the city council •Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city council in writing •No direct action is taken by the board/commission Report Findings •Initiated by the city council •Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city council on what action to take •A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' support Formal Recommandation 49 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan 2. Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2021 workplan review Planning commission and board of zoning appeals chair Eckholm presented the report. He noted key accomplishments and projects from 2020 including Historic Walker Lake zoning district (MX -2) and an ordinance allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs). He also presented the work plan for 2021 which includes review of single family building scale regulations, home occupations, parking regulations, a new transit-oriented development zoning district for the light rail transit station areas, allowing two family dwe llings in low density areas on appropriately-sized lots, review of the food security and access study, racial equity training, and consideration of a new transitional industrial district or amendments to current industrial districts. Councilmember Kraft stated there are interesting issues coming before the planning commission in 2021, which will have social impacts on racial equity and the climate crisis. He appreciates the work the commission does and is excited to look at two-family dwellings, which is a key tool for affordable housing. He stated electric vehicle parking is important but noted how some of the city’s electric vehicle parking requirements have already become obsolete. He asked if the commission will look at parking regulations more broadly . Mr. Walther stated they will look at the electric vehicle parking as one element of a broader review of off-street parking requirements, including some reductions in parking requirements around light rail transit areas. Councilmember Kraft noted the food security topic and stated he is interested that the commission is looking at this, adding he does a newsletter with Roots and Shoots at the high school on this topic. He noted an example in Denmark of persons walking everywhere they need to go within 5 minutes or less and asked the commission if they will discuss easy access for walking and biking. Mr. Eckholm stated they would like a discussion on this and ways to solve problems now for the future. He stated their intent is to find ways to improve and make better choices going forward and see if there are ways to support and connect people with existing resources. Councilmember Kraft noted the “parking lot” or lower priority issues listed in the work plan, water conservation and housing analysis, and asked how they came to be part of their workplan. Mr. Eckholm stated this was something a former commissioner was supportive of and the commission kept this on, noting they may be included in the 2022 work plan. Councilmember Harris stated the commission’s report was impressive and showed great teamwork. She stated she was interested in the industrial transition zone portion and agreed it is smart to look ahead on this. She asked how residents and area businesses will be engaged. Mr. Eckholm stated staff has done a great job on expanding outreach in new ways during the pandemic and bringing events to the community in an effective way. He noted Historic Walker Lake and Texa Tonka small area planning are both good examples of this engagement. He added the industrial transition zone is not intended to transition out of industrial, but to move to industrial without the traditional pollution or transportation issues, while also creating a more dynamic and flexible mix of uses. 50 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan Councilmember Harris noted the duplexes and asked if there were considerations for triplexes and quads. Mr. Eckholm stated the commission will investigate duplexes first, as per the comprehensive plan, adding they want to be sure folks are supportive of them, and there is also buy-in. He n oted a benefit may be to bring the tax burden down by spreading taxes amongst more homeowners, without changing the character of a neighborhood. He stated duplexes just allow more people to be your neighbors. Councilmember Harris stated with more businesses and live/work arrangements, this will be an important lens for viewing types of housing. She stated she would love to see quads and triplexes in the city as well. Mr. Eckholm stated this has been an “all of the above” proposition. The comprehensive plan also suggests rezoning certain corridors to allow medium density housing with attached townhomes, row homes, triplexes, and quads. This is an underrepresented housing type. He stated the planning commission will continue to seek ways to add more housing. Councilmember Rog noted comments from the planning commission about collaboration with other commissions and mentioned it is a great way to help merge expertise. She added this will reduce barriers to participation and is a goal for the council as well. She noted an upcoming study session will feature idea sharing with city staff. Councilmember Rog added she likes the idea of a housing analysis and asked if the commission looks at the Maxfield Housing Analysis every few years. She asked if targets are not prescriptive, what does the commission see policy targets being. Mr. Eckholm stated the commission was not as interested in policy targets regarding a specific renter versus owner occupied housing ratio, but on studying what we have currently, along with capacity, areas of the community that are established, and also have room to grow. Mr. Walther added Assistant Housing Supervisor Marney Olson has presented the Maxfield analysis to the commission regularly, and also shares the new and expanded programs the city offers to help provide context to the commission as they perform their duties. Councilmember Rog suggested they make sure to look at this document. Councilmember Rog added moving forward, if the city wants to change inequities, it might have to radically change, adding she is open to that and partnering with the commission going forward. Commissioner Weber noted if the council wants the commission to work on certain items or areas, or to have an expanded role, they could provide additional direction to the commission, adding this might help the commission move forward on certain areas. Councilmember Rog stated she appreciated that clarity, adding this is relevant to most of the city’s boards and commissions, and stated the council will continue to try to address this. Councilmember Dumalag stated she is impressed with the work of the planning commission, noting this is a robust set of items the council has tasked the commission to do. She will look 51 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan forward to the commission’s recommendations related to the housing analysis and unintended consequences of one owner with multiple properties. Councilmember Dumalag added she likes the space for home -based businesses if it is allowed by the city from a land use perspective. She stated it is in the city’s best interest to make affordable housing safe. She appreciated the discussions around food security and access, stating the mobile market can help from a use perspective, and can be allowed in certain parts of the city. She stated she is also in terested in the racial equity portion and the collaboration with the ESC [environment and sustainability commission]. Councilmember Dumalag added she appreciates looking at parking, noting so often parking is the way a development gets evaluated. Councilmember Kraft asked what specific questions would the commission ask of council. Commissioner Weber stated an example of a parking lot issue at Costco. He noted the commission decided that asking for a redesign of the parking lot would not be within the commission’s scope. He stated if council had told them in advance to pursue this issue, the commission may have voted differently on it and asked businesses in that area to come together with a solution for all. Mr. Walther stated staff usually takes a role on this type of issue and is mindful of what the council has on its broad strategic priorities as well as its study session topics, and most importantly what has been formally adopted in the comprehensive plan or other policies. He added the commission has study sessions as time allows based on the volume of current planning and zoning applications, and noted they want to focus on the highest priorities. The purpose of this discussion is to receive input from the city council regarding the priorities identified in the work plan. Mayor Spano pointed out the commission has legal authorities, which is different than other commissions, adding those need to be looked at first in order to avoid legal problems for the city. Councilmember Brausen agreed with Mayor Spano on this and on the planning commission needing guard rails, adding it is not the proper scope for the planning commission to level any land use, noting it is up to staff and the city attorney. He stated it is important to conform with the city’s laws and policies. Mayor Spano stated he liked the idea of walking to a corner store, but noted the council and commission needs to be prepared that this might shift expectations with residents and change existing aspects of neighborhoods. He added with parking, the council and commission will need to know they will be faced with frustrated residents, need to preface a conversation shift with residents, and be conscious of that. Mayor Spano asked Commissioner Imran how different his experience is here on the planning commission versus when he served on a planning commission in Kenya. Commissioner Imran stated it was quite different especially 52 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan related to zoning and city ordinances. Mayor Spano thanked Commissioner Imran for his work on the commission and taking responsibility for complicated issues. Councilmember Rog noted the commission’s input on a recent application and some of the challenges that are identified by commissioners or the public through the process. She stated this is where boards and commissions with public engagement can shine and get to best outcomes. She would like the commission to leverage their role to get best outcomes for our city, adding this is worth pursuing. 3. Zoning code size limits for houses Mr. Morrison presented to the council. He asked if council wants to revise the code size limits scale of additions and new construction for houses. Councilmember Rog stated she appreciated the report and the planning commission’s work on this. She noted it has been three years since this was discussed and she believes the council is now more systems focused and aligned with goals. She explained there are three outcomes that should be worked towards: affordability, move up options, and impact of large homes on neighbors. She felt the way it is being approached is piecemeal and the end impact would be limited, adding she thinks the council can do better. She suggested staff step back and take another look at the levers and focus on these outcomes. Councilmember Rog added the Move up in the Park program has become income restricted, a large group who do not qualify is being left out, and those folks are leaving the city. She also wants to see more data on allowing “McMansions”, and if that has an impact on people moving out of the city. She stated staff needs to get more formal input from neighbors and suggested council ask staff to explore more policy changes that help to achieve goals. She stated she will bring a new study session topic forward and asked staff to work on new goals that align with council priorities. Councilmember Kraft agreed with Councilmember Rog’s comments. He added it would be helpful to step back and look at this in a more holistic manner, noting there are 10- 15 teardowns per year in St. Louis Park and in Edina there are 150 per year. He stated St. Louis Park is running out of properties, he fears there could be more teardowns per year, and he wants to look at how the council wants the community to look over time. Councilmember Kraft added council needs to look at more significantly affordable homes, have staff help define this, and prevent an epidemic of teardowns and building of “McMansions”. He added redevelopment should be balanced against incomes and priorities and questioned how the city meets these goals using the mix of policies it has. Councilmember Harris stated she keeps reflecting on light and shadow and noted one of the things that impacts the quality of life is access to natural light. She added the height of a structure is less of a concern, but it can become problematic if the grade is built up. 53 Regular meeting meeting of June 16, 2021 (Item No. 3) Title: 2021 work plan Councilmember Harris stated she is in favor of leaving room for expanding home sizes but is worried about people moving out. She supports the Move up in the Park program but is struggling with how encouraging expansion of homes will meet the city’s climate goals. She agrees with Councilmember Rog on the systems approach and wants to move forward on further discussion of this in the future. Councilmember Brausen stated he is supportive of this, noting over the years residents have pushed back on tear downs and McMansions. He stated if there is something the city can do to allow some without totally eliminating tear downs, he is willing to look at that. He added the council needs clarity on goals and which will be primary, climate impact or the desires of the homeowner. He worries about a systems approach, about scope of where this goes, and sees it as a heavy lift. Councilmember Dumalag stated she agrees with the council but noted there also needs to be a conversation on investment and how does one buy into St. Louis Park, and the idea of the creation of wealth through real estate. She added it is a conversation worth having, noting it is difficult for young families to move here. Mayor Spano stated he is not sure what the council is trying to fix here, noting St. Louis Park does not have the numbers that Edina or Minnetonka have with tear downs. He stated this is a lot of work for a very small return, which he does not favor. He noted it is not a good use of the planning commission’s or staff’s time, the majority of these are arbitrary, and staff shouldn’t be making subjective assessments on architectural style. Mayor Spano added when he looks at the scope of this, he is not interested in taking this up when it only affects 20 homes. Councilmember Rog stated she is not looking to prohibit people from expanding their homes or get rid of housing options for people, adding that many residents have a viewpoint on this issue. Councilmember Rog stated St. Louis Park is not Edina, but based on realtors’ perceptions, it could be another Edina, where fewer than 150 of their homes are less than $400,000. She has concerns the city could become like Edina as well, while adding all people should be supported to have ownership in the community, including BIPOC groups. She would like to take up this discussion sooner rather than later, and if the council is looking at creating more affordability, it will be remiss in not doing system -thinking. Mayor Spano agreed this could be a problem in a year or two, but it hasn’t materialized yet, and added stepping back to take a broader view of this would be helpful, but he is not interested in these proposed policy changes. It was the consensus of the council to discontinue discussion of this item, and Councilmember Rog will resubmit this topic and rework it into a broader context for city council to consider adding to the future study session discussion list. 54